Child Offenders

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in view of the growing number of crimes committed by children too young to be brought before the courts, they have any plans to reduce the age of criminal responsibility.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is currently 10 and Her Majesty's Government have no plans to reduce it.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that age is not necessarily an accurate basis for distinguishing between right and wrong? Is it possible that a spate of youth crime may start at a younger age?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree that age is not necessarily the right dividing line for those who can determine between right and wrong, but an age of criminal responsibility is needed. I accept that in certain places there are those, under the age of 10, who commit crimes and antisocial behaviour. I do not believe that the correct way to deal with them is to reduce the age of criminal responsibility. Our age of criminal responsibility is one of the lowest in Europe. I believe that Scotland is the only country that has a lower age and it has been advised by the Law Commission that it should be increased to 12. The right course is to intervene as early as possible to try to prevent people going down the path of crime.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am delighted that the Minister accepts that our age of criminal responsibility is one of the lowest in Western Europe. Does the Minister also accept that the best way to deal with children is to adopt the practices used in many European countries where children are dealt with in family courts where supervision and care are more of a concern than any criminal process? Would such a process help to reduce crime?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, when a child under the age of 10 is drawn to the attention of the authorities for committing antisocial behaviour or a crime, he or she is treated as a child in need under the 1988 Act and social services consider the correct course for that child. I wholly agree that in relation to a child under 10 all steps should be taken to consider what is the best way to divert him or her from a life of crime. When a child is 10 or older, difficult decisions have to be made about the extent to which criminal proceedings are appropriate.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most effective ways of reducing juvenile crime at whatever age is to ensure extra support early enough for families in the most deprived areas? Does he further agree that nipping the very first signs of truancy in the bud is a necessary part of the equation?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I wholly agree that the best possible support should be provided to prevent children turning to crime at any age. I fully accept the basis of the noble Baroness's question. First, I draw her attention to the Sure Start programme, which seeks to achieve that and, secondly, to the Government's focus on seeking to ensure, for example, that children who are excluded from school nevertheless receive full-time education. All of us know the close connection between exclusion from school and the commission of crime.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, while accepting the answers given so far by my noble and learned friend, does he agree that there may be some justification for increasing the degree of responsibility and perhaps punishment for adults who may influence young children to commit crimes?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, indeed. All too often one hears of occasions when children and parents are engaged together in shoplifting activities. One should come down as hard as possible on parents who urge their children to commit criminal offences.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House the legal position of children who, according to recent truancy reports, are encouraged to stay away from school in order to engage in shoplifting?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the legal position depends on the age of the child, but if a parent incites a child who is over the age of criminal responsibility to commit a criminal offence, that is the crime of incitement. As the noble Viscount will know, the Government have been keen to ensure that the strictest possible measures are taken by courts in dealing with parents who do not ensure that their children attend school when they can.

Baroness Stern: My Lords, does the Minister agree that treating troubled and damaged young children as criminals makes them more troubled and damaged? Section 130 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 has allowed many more children on remand to be locked up in secure places which are overcrowded and an experiment, to be conducted in 10 areas, is to be rolled out in September of this year. In the light of the large numbers of young children who have been locked up under that section, does he agree that the implementation of the section throughout the country should be postponed?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not agree with the last proposal. Difficult decisions have to be made about children who are above the age of criminal responsibility in relation to crimes that they commit. Where, for example, crimes such as street robbery are on the increase, it is necessary for judgments to be made as to how best to protect the community. That does not mean that where it is appropriate for an individual child to be given help rather than to undergo criminal proceedings, that that should not be provided, because that would help to reduce re-offending. However, it is not a one-way street. The protection of the community also has to be considered.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thought that we were dealing with children under the age of criminal responsibility. If that is the case, would it be possible to introduce, without criminalisation, a way in which magistrates could make an effective order that social services would have to implement?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the question is indeed about the criminal age of responsibility. As I indicated before in answer to an earlier question, where a child comes to the attention of the authorities because it has committed an act of antisocial behaviour or a crime, that child is treated as a child in need and the social services investigate the correct course to pursue. That is better than bringing the child before the court in every case.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, the Minister said that England has the lowest age of criminal responsibility and that Scotland is being advised to raise the age there to 12. Is the Minister considering raising the age of criminal responsibility in England?
	Given the success of parenting orders and the need that many of these children have for clear boundaries, does the Minister hope that some of the money that the Chancellor is today investing in schools will go to better parenting education in schools so that students leaving school will be better equipped to manage family life?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I thoroughly support the underlying sentiment of the second part of the question; namely, that money spent on parenting orders and on helping people to understand their responsibilities as parents is money well spent. But it is not for me to determine how the education budget should be spent.
	As to the first part of the question about whether we are thinking of increasing the age of criminal responsibility, as I made clear in Answer to the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, we are not.

Southern Africa

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What decisions were reached at the G8 Summit in Canada about the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NePAD) and in particular Zimbabwe.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, at the G8 summit leaders welcomed the initiative taken by African leaders in adopting the New Partnership for Africa's Development. They agreed to build a new way of working together, focusing especially on those countries that demonstrate commitment to good governance, that invest in their people and that pursue policies that spur economic growth and alleviate poverty. There are no specific references to Zimbabwe in the G8 Action Plan for Africa. But it makes clear commitments to respond to NePAD efforts to improve governance across Africa.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Can she assure the House that the Commonwealth initiative at the African Union meeting in Duban last week is not a road to compromise on its previous decision to suspend? Considering that Zimbabwe was suspended because of a fraudulent presidential election, can she assure the House that the Government will not support any move to remove the suspension until a free and fair election is held?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I understand the situation, there are parallel initiatives. Noble Lords will know that the governments of South Africa and Nigeria sought to facilitate dialogue between the two political parties in Zimbabwe. Commonwealth leaders suspended Zimbabwe from the councils of the Commonwealth. It is suspended for one year. That remains the position. The UK Government supports it.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, many international gatherings are considering Zimbabwe, and the situation gets worse. Bearing in mind that Mr Mugabe is a member of the Roman Catholic Church—I am not sure of what standing—does the Minister agree that it may be opportune for Her Majesty's Government and to the world community to ask the Vatican to intercede in this great tragedy?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, that is one suggestion. Noble Lords will know that we have sought to ensure that we pursue all avenues. We are concerned about Zimbabwe, particularly the deteriorating humanitarian situation and the economic mismanagement, which is having an impact on the countries in the region. I shall certainly take back the noble Lord's idea.

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, did the G8 summit discuss the problems of Angola? Coming out of the war into peace has proved much more difficult than one imagined, both the scale of the poverty and the scale of the hunger caused by the war. What is being done to make sure that food aid especially is made available and to bring about a quick improvement to the situation?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, there was discussion of Angola. The G8 action plan makes reference to three specific conflicts where the international community, and in particular the G8 countries, feel that there needs to be concerted international action; that is, the Sudan, the DRC and Angola. We remain committed to work with the UN and others not only to get food aid into Angola but also to those from UNITA who are disarming and demobilising. We shall continue to do that, but the situation remains difficult in terms of distribution channels.

Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, does the Minister accept that having tried to deal with problems in South Africa over a period of six years, I understand well the frustrating difficulties of trying to grapple with a situation of this kind from thousands of miles away? Does she further agree that if international pressure is to have the effect that we would all wish upon the catastrophic tragedy in Zimbabwe, it needs to be pervasive, comprehensive—not least throughout Africa—and sustained unflinchingly on every possible occasion?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Lord. In my comments to this House I have made that absolutely clear. It is particularly important that that pressure comes from governments within Africa and from the neighbouring countries that are being severely affected economically by the mismanagement of the Zimbabwe economy.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what immediate steps are being taken by the G8 countries, including the United Kingdom, to deal with the unfolding tragedy in Malawi? It is estimated, as the Minister will know, that something like one-third of children are close to starvation? Can she say what steps are being taken urgently to try to relieve this unfolding catastrophe?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the food aid and famine situation not only in Zimbabwe but across the southern African region is deeply distressing and difficult. Malawi is one example. We have been working with the World Food Programme. At a meeting in South Africa it laid out for the international community the situation facing the whole region. We have been working with it and with non-governmental organisations to facilitate the delivery of food aid to Malawi. The pressing and immediate issue is humanitarian, but we will continue to work with the Government of Malawi on a longer term, bilateral basis to try to ensure that such situations are not repeated.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the reaction of the African states to Mr Mugabe at the African Union meeting presided over by President Gaddafi was not exactly reassuring? Can she tell the House precisely what we are to urge at the General Affairs Council on the 22nd of this month? Will we urge that pressure be brought to bear by all European countries on all their African partners to ensure that maize is planted now for next year? Will the question of HIV also be considered, as most of the HIV clinics, which are partly run by farmers' wives on farms, are closing? Finally, will anything be done to prevent the families of Ministers from travelling, not just the Ministers themselves?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that the travel ban is a European Union ban. I am sure that it will be considered again at the GAC meeting next Monday. It will be for the EU to decide whether to extend the ban as the noble Baroness suggests. We have been pressing our EU partners and working with them consistently over Zimbabwe, so that is not a new item on the agenda for consideration on Monday. The dialogue will continue.
	On HIV/AIDS, the noble Baroness will be aware that that is an area in which we have continued our bilateral assistance to Zimbabwe because of the terrible impact that it is having on ordinary Zimbabweans.

Network Rail

Viscount Goschen: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What influence they will have over the management of Network Rail.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government will not have new statutory or other powers over the management of Network Rail, but the Strategic Rail Authority will have a non-executive director on the board of the company and will set a framework within which Network Rail must deliver a required output.

Viscount Goschen: My Lords, given that Network Rail will be operated in accordance with the Strategic Rail Authority's strategic plan; that it will be regulated by the SRA; that its accounts will be incorporated in those of the SRA; and that the SRA, a government body, will be providing an equity cushion—a de facto guarantee—how can that company be determined to be a private company?
	Secondly, will the Minister now answer the Question that I asked his noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston on 27th June: how much will that synthetic structure cost the taxpayer in the additional costs of borrowing commercially, rather than on the gilt market?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Viscount is right to say that the National Audit Office has ruled that Network Rail will be a subsidiary of the Strategic Rail Authority and that the SRA's accounts will include Network Rail's assets and liabilities. That accords with generally accepted accounting principles. It is also true that the Office for National Statistics, which is of course an independent body, has ruled that Network Rail is not a public sector company. It made that ruling in line with the European standard of accounts 1995. Different rules are produced for different purposes. We as a Government intend as far as possible to accord with generally accepted accounting practice and have been outstandingly successful in so doing.
	I am not familiar with the exact Question that the noble Viscount asked my noble friend Lord Macdonald, so I shall have to write to the noble Viscount about that.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, on the question of accounting practices, can my noble friend confirm that the Government are guaranteeing the overdraft of the new company? Under the new set of accounts that the Government will have to prepare under their latest Bill, will that not appear as a contingent liability of the Government?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, my noble friend is entirely correct. That will appear as a contingent liability. The credit facilities will be provided by the SRA—they constitute a large sum at present because there has been a substantial lack of investment. Under the 10-year plan, we propose an annual investment in the railways, on top of running costs, of £4.6 billion a year on average, which is three times the figure devoted to the railways during the 10 years before 1997.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, is not the Answer that the Minister should have given to my noble friend Lord Goschen that Network Rail has fallen between two stools? It is not a government organisation, so it does not have the advantage of being able to borrow cheaply on the gilt market, which could save it hundreds of millions of pounds a year; but it is not a private company, so it does not have the advantage of private sector involvement and accounting ability? It is a mess.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as for the advantage of private sector accounting ability, Network Rail will have roughly 100 members, of whom about 40 will be from the rail industry. The rest will represent the public interest and the Strategic Rail Authority.
	As for what Network Rail will have to pay for its finance, we shall see. Clearly, bridge finance will need to be provided—the current amount is up to £10 billion. But Railtrack was taking money from the taxpayer on a very large scale after privatisation and before we got a grip of it. Let us see. I think that Network Rail will be able to arrange longer-term credit facilities, in the manner that Eurotunnel did rather successfully.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, one way or another, very large sums are being provided for the new company by the Government. How will the Government explain to ordinary people, whose money in effect it is, how improvements will be obtained in three of the matters that cause the most concern: first, the lack of a proper engineering ethos within the former Railtrack; secondly, provision of safe and reliable services now; and, thirdly, the rapid increase in capacity of our rail services?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the formal answer to the question asked by the noble Baroness is the one that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave in his Statement on 27th June: the performance targets will be aligned to the Strategic Rail Authority's long-term plans, as well to Network Rail's obligations to its customers under its network licence. But the noble Baroness is right to say that the public will have to be convinced that that is the case.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the Minister explained that the Government chose to follow European rules to keep Network Rail off the Government's balance sheet. Can he give one good, substantive reason for doing that? Can he explain how the Government differ from Enron, which also chose the accounting that suited it best?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government did not keep Network Rail off the balance sheet, it was the Office for National Statistics, which is independent of government, which decided to act under ESA 1995, with which the noble Baroness will be familiar. That is how we have to account to other European member states, so that serves a useful purpose. It is certainly entirely different from Enron, which concealed the fact that matters were off its accounts. We have been public in every way on the matter; we have declared everything to Parliament; we are in no way worried by such accusations.

Genetically Modified Organisms

Lord Taverne: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they agree with the views expressed by the Prince of Wales about genetically modified organisms in a recent speech in Germany.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government recognise that people have concerns about genetically modified crops. We have announced that we will encourage a full and informed public debate on GM issues, including GM crops and food.

Lord Taverne: My Lords, whether one agrees or disagrees with Prince Charles's speech about genetically engineered crops or with his denunciation of cheap food, we must all agree that, in a constitutional monarchy, it is quite wrong for the heir to the throne to make speeches about politically controversial issues. If he wishes do so, should he not renounce his claim to the throne?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, what is quite wrong is for any aspersion or reflection to be cast on the Sovereign or any member of the Royal Family. I would advise your Lordships not to accept such questions.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, can I be in order by returning to the subject of GM crops? The Prime Minister said that he would like the science of genetically modified crops to be allowed to progress unhindered. Does the Minister agree with me that, if the Prime Minister intends to facilitate that by silencing the critics of genetic modification, he will do a disservice to informed and honest debate? Does the Minister also agree that Her Majesty's Government should set up a Select Committee on science to monitor developments in this field and advise government and Parliament?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Lord questions whether the Government support a genuine debate on the issue: we do. We wish to identify the public's questions and provide people with the information that will allow them to formulate their response. We want people to reach their own informed judgment. The independent Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission has provided detailed advice on how the debate might be conducted. We will respond to that advice as soon as possible.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the precautionary principle should apply strongly in the trialling of GM crops? The manipulation of genes needs careful assessment, before any conclusions can be reached. Biodiversity is still of crucial importance.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government fully recognise the concerns. That is why great care has been taken in the establishment of the trials and the farm-scale evaluation. We will consider the results carefully when we know the outcome of those trials.

Lord Carter: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that Americans have consumed GM produce for years? Is there any evidence that any American has suffered ill effects as a result?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we are aware of no evidence that suggests, in any way, that any Americans have been adversely affected by the use of such crops. It is not possible to have a direct read-across because the crops concerned and the circumstances and style of farming in the United States and the United Kingdom are different. We have absolutely no evidence of ill effects.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, does the intervention by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House indicate that there will be a change in the rules relating to the acceptability of questions?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is no change in the rules. The Question was in order; the supplementary question was not.

Baroness Hayman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the most depressing features of the debate to which she referred is the assumption that an entire technology is either good or bad? Does she agree that it is the application of the technology that is important and needs proper scrutiny? The technology has been shown to be valuable in the genetically modified organisms that produce a range of things, from vegetarian cheddar cheese to life-saving vaccines. Will the Minister ensure that the Government protect research that allows us to have a proper evaluation of crops and, in particular, their potential impact on the developing world?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for raising that point. She is right. Many people who suffer from diabetes already benefit from insulin produced from the medical application of the GM process. Like the noble Baroness, we believe that the crops are not inherently good or bad. However, they must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, in the context of the sort of concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Food Standards Agency, set up under Sir John Krebs, has stated that it can find no evidence of harm caused by the eating of GM food?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I was not aware that that statement had been made. However, I can say that the Government are concerned that the debate that will attend the results of the trials, and the public dialogue must, as a central feature, take account of the concerns of consumers about quality and choice.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the spending review.

Public Services (Disruption) Bill [HL]

Report received.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	Clause 42 [Young asylum seeker]:

Earl Russell: moved Amendment No. 142:
	Page 24, line 14, at end insert—
	"( ) Any financial support made available as a result of subsection (1) above shall be paid in advance and such support for children over 16 shall be set at the same level as for children under 16."

Earl Russell: I would have said, "I rise", except for the fact that I have not yet had time to sit down. Anyway, I am deemed to have risen to move the amendment.
	There is no youth training programme for asylum seekers. There is no New Deal for asylum seekers. So the reasons commonly advanced for paying a different rate for those over 16 and those under 16 do not apply. An asylum seeker over 16 who is not yet allowed to work and has not yet been here for six months is in the same position of financial dependence as his juniors. There is therefore a good argument for taking both cases together.
	In the amendment, the use of the phrase "in advance" is also of considerable importance. The moment at which a claim for asylum is granted ought to be a moment of celebration for a refugee. All too often, it is one of the gravest spells of anxiety that they face. As they come off support under NASS they become eligible for benefits and that interval often can be extremely prolonged. Communication between NASS and the Benefits Agency has been very far from the best. Indeed, often the first that a refugee hears of his claim being accepted is a note from NASS saying, "Since your claim has been successful, your support has been terminated". The claimant takes the note to the Benefits Agency, which responds by saying, "We know nothing about this".
	Considerable problems appear to surround the issue of form NASS 35, the signing-off form to be handed over to the Benefits Agency. I have been in correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. They have been extremely helpful, but it is too soon to know whether, as a result, things will get any better. In any case, it is clear that having one's claim as a refugee recognised ought not to be a reason for immediate destitution.
	If provision is made for payment in advance, one will cut off two weeks from any period of destitution, even if nothing else is done to improve the situation. Taking two weeks off a period of destitution is by no means an insignificant advance. That alone would be a justification for the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 142 to which I have added my name and which I see as a probing amendment. Two weeks ago I met representatives of the Refugee Children's Consortium. They believe that all unaccompanied children should receive the level of care and protection to which they are entitled, which can only be right. The consortium points out that the policy of different funding, and thus levels of support, on the basis of age is out of line with statutory guidance on the assessment and support of children under the national assessment framework. The guidance requires local authorities to undertake a full needs-based rather than age-based assessment of all children in need and provide them with appropriate support. The principle of best interest enshrined in the Children Act 1989 must also be applied.
	The consortium rightly says that it is for the Government to justify the fact that the grant available to local authorities for the support of unaccompanied minors should be determined by the age of the child. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made a powerful point when he referred to the fact that the usual arguments against a uniform rate do not apply in exactly the same way in this case.
	I am aware that changes have been made to the systems of payment so that, although retrospectively, the grant is now paid quarterly in arrears. That improvement was welcomed by my honourable friend Mr Malins on 14th May, at col. 212 of the Official Report. However, we have to ask why the Government are not prepared to go the further yard or two in order to achieve something closer to a real-time reimbursement of support payments to local authorities.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I recognise the generosity of spirit with which this amendment was moved. However, we do not think that it is necessary; indeed, in some ways it could be unhelpful.
	The aim of the clause is to increase the flexibility with which the Home Office can reimburse local authorities. In our view, the amendment would restrict that. It asks for payments in advance to what is generally accepted on all sides to be a volatile, demand-led population that is extremely difficult to forecast. It means that local authorities would have to produce estimates of the number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children that they would be supporting in the future, as well as the costs that they were likely to incur. That could result in large balances being held in local authority accounts which could be used elsewhere. We do not regard that as a proper use of government funds.
	As acknowledged, the Home Office has already moved to quarterly payments in arrears to local authorities for supporting adults and families. It fully intends to continue doing so for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. That will do much to remedy some of the properly identified problems suffered by local authorities without the need for a complex advance payment system that would have to take account of the volatility that I mentioned.
	The second part of the amendment seeks to fix grant levels for all unaccompanied asylum-seeking children to the same amount without taking into account the level of support required. Costs to local authorities are much more dependent on the actual support they provide for children as assessed on a one-to-one basis rather than crudely on age. Last year the grant regime sought to recognise this for the first time by continuing the higher rate of support for older children whose initial assessment had shown that they required support under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989. The higher rate for children supported under that section, as opposed to a rate set on an age basis, reflects the care costs to meet the needs of children as assessed under very strict guidance issued jointly by the Department of Health, the Home Office and the Department for Education and Skills.
	We believe that it would be wrong and possibly damaging to children to pre-empt the assessment by prescribing levels of care based on age. That would not ensure that they received appropriate care while, of course, encouraging value for money. We do not think that we could justify paying the higher rate to all regardless of need and without regard to assuring value for money.
	I can advise the House that there is a thorough review of the grant mechanism in plan and that the overwhelming requests received from local authorities are for more flexibility rather than prescription. That may well be where we differ.
	The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about delays in assessing social security benefits. I pay tribute to him for having raised this issue with my noble friend Lord Rooker. As the noble Lord pointed out, his point has had a very sympathetic hearing. We recognise and acknowledge that there have been problems. In fairness, however, officials at the Home Office and the Department for Work and Pensions have been working to reduce the scale of any difficulties. We are trying to ensure that when an individual leaves his accommodation because he has been granted leave to remain he is provided for as quickly as possible.
	The noble Earl referred to the NASS 35 document. This is issued to enable Jobcentre Plus, formerly the Benefits Agency, to calculate any backdated payments of benefits and thus is not strictly required to obtain benefits. Therefore asylum seekers should go without delay to their Jobcentre Plus with the document which granted them leave to enter or to remain, along with any other identification that they may have in order to start the process.
	We are working very hard to ensure that any pain resulting from the transitional phase to which the noble Earl referred is minimised and that all necessary support is put in place in the way both the noble Earl and the Government would wish to see.

Earl Russell: The noble Lord is correct to point out that the production of form NASS 35 is not required to receive benefits. Could he manage to make that clear to the Benefits Agency?

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, before the Minister responds to the question put by my noble friend, can he also tell the Committee whether he has estimated the amount of money that will be involved under Clauses 110 and 111, bearing in mind that we are referring to the same level of support as that offered to those aged 16? The Minister should bear in mind the number of young asylum seekers awaiting a decision on their applications. There should be no difficulty in working out the costs involved.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall seek to clarify for his benefit the point put to me by the noble Earl and ensure that he is made aware of the position.
	I do not have to hand the figures sought by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. Again, however, I am willing to seek to find out what would be the implications because, clearly, costs are important. We need to ensure that the system is cost-effective.
	I return to the first and most important point that I made; namely, ensuring that we have in place the requisite flexibility. That is most important in this area.

Earl Russell: The Home Office is always in favour of its own flexibility and everyone else's inflexibility. One person's flexibility necessarily involves inflexibility for another. Where one has a need arising and a procedure for meeting it, which may come sometime after it, clearly there has to be give somewhere in the system. The interim gap must be filled either by the asylum seeker, by the local authority or by the Home Office. If there is any fourth possibility it has not occurred to me. If it occurs to the Minister, I shall be very glad to hear it.
	The question is which of the three is best able to show the flexibility needed for carrying a debt—which is what it is—during the period before it is reimbursed. The asylum seeker is in the worst position. I was reading late last night a brief from the BMA about health problems among asylum seekers. Admittedly it dates from the unlamented voucher days but some of it is still applicable, although I would hesitate to say how much. It indicates extremely poor standards of nutrition. It also indicates extreme hardship in regard to transport. In one case, for example, a man had to go and see a psychiatrist to get evidence in support of his claim, but, because he had no money whatever left for fares, he had to walk 35 miles through the night in order to be there in time for the interview. This does not suggest that asylum seekers are best able to show flexibility while waiting for their money to come in.
	The Government may be under the illusion that local authorities are rather better off. Most local authorities would not share that opinion. A shortage of money among local authorities is a problem that has got worse every year I have been in the House. The argument about the budget of care homes illustrates that very clearly, although this is not the time to go into that. So if someone is to bear the strain, it would be much better if it was the Home Office.
	As to the question of not relating it to age, people of 18 eat as much as people of 17; they wear out their shoes as fast as people of 17; they need overcoats for the winter in Lancashire just as much as people of 17. If there is to be a discrimination, I do not see the rationale. If the Minister could enlighten me, I would be very interested.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Earl paints a dismal picture. I do not see it the same way. The Government appreciate that there are difficulties, but we have to make difficult choices. In working a system that provides aid and support, we have tried to increase flexibility. I believe that we have done that to a great degree. We have listened very carefully to what the noble Earl has said. As I said earlier, we are grateful to him for bringing to our attention the cases that he has. If we were to listen to every single case in the same way, we would end up with an infinitely expanding system. I do not believe that that would necessarily be right.
	Hard choices have to be made in public expenditure. That is exactly what we have tried to do, but with fairness and balance. We have tried to ensure that local authorities are properly reimbursed and we have tried to speed up the process. In moving away from the voucher scheme—which the noble Earl says is unlamented, and I can understand why he said that—we have tried to focus on a flexible system.
	I cannot accept the amendment. I understand the spirit in which it is moved and I accept that there are hard cases. But hard cases do not necessarily make good law, and we have to understand that important point in making hard choices. I invite the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment. The noble Earl brings to this issue his experience of cases in which he is involved and, if any particular difficulties arise, it would be helpful if he would continue to do exactly that. We can then ensure that such cases are looked at closely and consider what further improvements can be made. In the mean time, I invite the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.

Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for that reply. It is true that I painted a dismal picture. The bulk of the evidence for that comes from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and the BMA, which are two reputable organisations. That dismal picture is shared by almost everyone who has made a study of this subject. It is shared by the Christian Churches, by the National Association of Social Workers and by the National Association of Probation Officers. There are many cases in the BMA files of social services turning away asylum seekers because they were simply unable to handle their problems. I cannot think of anyone, other than the Government, who does not share this dismal picture.
	As the BMA has stressed very strongly, one of the consequences has been the creation of a considerable amount of mental illness among asylum seekers, most of whom are already somewhat traumatised when they arrive here. As the Minister knows, mental illness is an extremely expensive condition for the Government. It may be that the Government, like Charles I, may be in the position of not being rich enough to afford economies. It seems that we are in the usual position where the Government's view is, "They are all out of step but our Johnny". I do not believe that I can shift them from that view. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 43 agreed to.

Lord Best: moved Amendment No. 142ZA:
	After Clause 43, insert the following new clause—
	"SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE FOR THOSE GRANTED LEAVE TO REMAIN
	The following shall be inserted after section 94(6) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (interpretation of Part VI)—
	"(6A) If, on the determination of his claim for asylum, the asylum seeker is granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, he is to be treated (for the purposes of the provision of support and accommodation under this Part only) as continuing to be an asylum seeker—
	(a) for a period of 60 days; or
	(b) until he secures adequate accommodation and support,
	whichever is the sooner.""

Lord Best: In moving Amendment No. 142ZA, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 146A and 238A. These amendments seek to insert two new clauses into the Bill and to make a consequential amendment to the money clause. The first proposed new clause seeks to address the question of successful asylum seekers who obtain refugee status and are allowed to remain in this country but who receive a 28-day eviction notice to leave the accommodation provided for them by the National Asylum Support Service. The new clause seeks to extend the 28 days to 60 days. I shall explain my reasoning for that shortly.
	The second proposed new clause requires local authorities to give guidance and advice, in their own language, to new refugees in accommodation who are looking for an alternative home. The third amendment is a consequential amendment to the money clause. It seeks to ensure that local authorities are reimbursed for the work involved in providing that advice and guidance to new refugees.
	The purpose of the two proposed new clauses is to help integrate those people who are going to stay here; to help them settle and remain in the places to which they have been dispersed. This mostly means them remaining in northern conurbations, where there is a relatively good supply of affordable accommodation. It is not intended to help new refugees to return to London and the South East, and other areas which are under great pressure, where they would only add to the problems of homelessness. Local authorities have an obligation to provide accommodation to homeless families in these areas despite all the pressures on them. Local authorities also have a duty to help single refugees, but probably not to provide them with a home. In the overcrowded London market that will inevitably lead to more overcrowding and homelessness.
	Previously, the time allowed for people to make their own alternative arrangements and leave their NASS provided accommodation was 14 days. This was increased to 28 days in April but there were only weak obligations on local authorities to provide any support and assistance to those people in their search for a new home, or with the other requirements upon them if they are to integrate into the local community.
	Since the Second Reading debate in your Lordships' House I have visited the North East to talk to people engaged in helping refugees. I have spoken to the north of England refugee service, the refugee advisory committee on Tyneside, the regional refugee forum and the North East consortium for asylum seekers' services. I have talked to people in local authorities in Newcastle, north Tyneside, Redcar and Cleveland. I have talked to representatives providing accommodation in the private sector and I have talked to refugee community organisations which look after the needs of Kurdish, Congolese, Somali, Angolan, Iraqi and other groups. I have also had a presentation from the University of Sunderland, which has undertaken a survey of the aspirations of asylum seekers in terms of their future housing needs.
	The conclusion that I have drawn from all that is the good news that dispersal is showing some signs of working. Those who have been sent to northern cities are prepared to make a go of it and stay there; 40 per cent said that it would be their preferred choice to stay in the area to which they have been sent; and nearly 40 per cent more say that they would be willing to stay and give it a try. Therefore, 80 per cent of asylum seekers would stay in the area to which they have been dispersed, rather than head back immediately for the overcrowded South.
	The bad news is that all those to whom I spoke agreed that it is bound to take more than 28 days for people to get themselves sorted out once the news comes through that they have been given leave to remain in this country. They have to get a national insurance number, which alone can take two to three months. Without that number they cannot legally obtain a job or benefits, nor can they open a bank account. They need to visit the Jobcentre if they want jobseeker's allowance and will have to fill in all the necessary forms. They have to go to the local authority if they require housing benefit which is notorious for its administrative problems.
	Having sorted everything out under all those headings, they need to go into the marketplace to look for a private landlord, or possibly persuade a local authority, to find them accommodation. I have a daughter at university in Newcastle, so I have been through the process of finding privately rented accommodation there, and I can tell the Committee that that takes more than 28 days. All the students going back for the next academic year who have any sense have already secured their accommodation. They cannot do it within 28 days, and students do not have to seek housing benefit; they have parents to act as guarantors for private landlords. It is setting people an insuperable task to expect them within that short period to find accommodation and put down roots to remain and settle in the area.
	My first proposed new clause would extend that period to 60 days, and the second would put an obligation on local authorities to provide advice and guidance in the language of the refugee household, to assist in the process of becoming assimilated and integrated into the local community.
	The Minister has kindly written to me following the Second Reading debate and has made the point that rather than extending the 28-day period, it would be good if the process of issuing the national insurance number were speeded up. I entirely agree that that would be desirable, but even with people receiving their national insurance number faster, and cutting two to three months to something far less, I cannot see that all the processes could be reasonably accomplished before the eviction time arrives and people have to leave. The Minister suggests that the best agencies for advice may be local voluntary and community bodies. I agree, but it seems wise to place the obligation on local authorities and for the Secretary of State to reimburse them for providing that advice and guidance, even though they would discharge their duty often through local agencies.
	Far more people are affected by the dispersal policy than are ever likely to be affected by the new accommodation centres. The policy is a critical part of the Government's efforts to handle questions of asylum seekers and refugees. Dispersal policy is showing signs of successfully persuading people that the new places to which they have been sent—away from the pressured South—are suitable for their long-term needs. That good work will be undermined if we are impatient and demand that people leave the accommodation too quickly and we do not give them the support and guidance that I hope those proposed new clauses will provide. I beg to move.

Lord Dholakia: We support the amendments. In doing so, I was delighted to hear the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Best, whose experience of charitable work, especially in housing, is exceptional. His speech should therefore carry considerable weight.
	The noble Lord made a good case for his sensible amendments. I would make three points. First, we are talking about asylum seekers who are no longer waiting in the queue but who have been granted leave to remain. Therefore we are not talking about someone whose rights about staying in this country have not been determined. Secondly, I want to explain why our support is so vital. When we consider the history of anyone who has come to this country, the sooner they can be integrated and absorbed into the community, the better not only for the asylum seekers but for the community.
	I shall make an analogy. It may be rather difficult for the Committee to equate it with asylum seekers, but let us consider the resettlement of offenders who come out of prison and the social exclusion report that was published last week. The Government have conceded that they must help people who desperately need it. If such help is not given serious problems are created. We need to ensure that the people who will settle in this country are given adequate help.
	Thirdly, there is the matter of housing and applying for benefit in languages other than English. It is most important that local authorities would be encouraged to assist in this exercise if they knew that funds were ultimately available from the Secretary of State. In other words, the Government should back up this kind of initiative by local authorities to help people who will be part and parcel of the community. We are delighted to support the amendment.

Earl Russell: I, too, welcome the amendment warmly and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Best, not only on the clarity of his remarks but on his exemplary patience in waiting through hours and hours of our proceedings in the previous sitting of the Committee, only to be denied the chance to move it in the end. He has proved himself a good House of Lords man; I only hope that he does not have to do that too often, but I admire immensely the way in which he has done it.
	The amendments meet exactly the difficulties that I outlined a moment ago. The moment of acceptance as a refugee should be one of rejoicing, but it is a moment of coming down with a bump. It reminds me of the sad story of the step-father of one of my undergraduate friends who was parachuted into Arnhem and broke his leg on landing. He succeeded in concealing himself in the bushes while the Germans hunted noisily around him. He got out of the area and into France, leapt out of his hotel bedroom just as the Gestapo came in through the door, got into a pipeline and made his way to the Swiss frontier. Just as the frontier guards were approaching him, he found that the French Resistance had planted spying documents on him which would have led to his being shot. He finally made his way to Switzerland, and then to Lisbon. After a six months' wait he got a flight back to England, bringing with him one bottle of sherry—which the Customs impounded. His words were: "And then I knew I was home"! I suppose that that is tolerable for British subjects with an honourable military record, but for people for whom this is the first experience of accepting life as a British citizen, it really is a bit of a shock.
	The proposed 60-day period is exactly what is needed. It reminds me of the extended period of eligibility for housing benefit introduced by Mr Kenneth Clarke in the Budget in 1993. One person to whom I was talking, who was at the time on benefit, said that this one concession was worth all the rest put together.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Best, that if the Government accept these amendments, as I very much hope they will, it is worth keeping an eye on how they are administered. In regard to the Kenneth Clarke concession it was by no means always made clear to applicants that if they did not apply for it within the first eight days, they would not get it at all. There is always a wheeze somewhere in the background—for which I believe Ministers are not to blame. Eternal vigilance will be needed here as elsewhere.
	I agree with everything that the noble Lord said about national insurance numbers, but the delay in allocating national insurance numbers has been a standing problem for as long as I have been a spokesman on social security—which is a great deal longer than I care to count. Eight years ago, I became the longest serving social security spokesman in any party in either House.
	I remember when my party began to complain about the delay in allocating national insurance numbers. The Government said that this was grossly exaggerated. They said that we were painting a dismal picture. What they did not know was that our spokesman's researcher had had her national insurance card stolen with her handbag and, six months later, had not succeeded in obtaining a replacement. So we knew perfectly well that it was a real problem. The problem is with the Government's ability to handle software, and that extends a great deal beyond our responsibilities. The noble Lord, Lord Best, was right to say that, although we must try to do better in regard to national insurance numbers, that is not an adequate answer to the problems that he raises.
	The amendment probably will provide an adequate answer. I certainly cannot think of a better one. I welcome it warmly and I hope that the Government accept it.

Lord Hylton: At Second Reading, I advised the Government to listen carefully to what my noble friend Lord Best was saying. Perhaps I may congratulate him on his research in the field and on producing three quite detailed but practical amendments. I just wonder whether 60 days will be long enough in every case, but this is obviously a step in the right direction. I underline strongly the reference in Amendment No. 146A to giving advice in the language appropriate to the new refugee's understanding. Having been deeply involved over many years in housing aid and advice, I am sure that that amendment is absolutely on the right lines.
	I hope that the Conservative Front Bench will support the amendment and I trust that the Government will accept it.

Lord Judd: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for having introduced this subject into our deliberations. I ask my noble friend the Minister, when he replies, to take the issue behind the amendments extremely seriously.
	The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the need to celebrate the gaining of the status of acceptance. But there is another, equally important issue. That is: how in those initial days and weeks the foundations can be laid for a successful life in the future. If we are serious about wanting asylum seekers to make a success of their lives in our community and to be able to become fully integrated, we have to have specific and positive policies in place to help them in that transition. To have them totally mesmerised and preoccupied with the anxieties and issues of trying to find even a roof over their heads will not help.
	It would be wrong to make an absolute comparison, but there is an approximate comparison with the successfully rehabilitated prisoner leaving prison and coming back to start life as a positive citizen. There is a major issue in our society in that context. So often, it goes wrong because generous, practical support is not there at the critical time. Whether or not these particular amendments are the right ones, the issue is a very important one. I do not merely hope but am sure that, in replying, my noble friend will want to be able to indicate that the Government take these matters seriously and are determined to have practical measures in place to meet the need.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The objectives behind the amendments are wholly laudable. I simply have some difficulty with the detail of the practical application that the proposed new clauses might entail. Therefore, I have one or two questions for the noble Lord, Lord Best. He may be able to address them in his final remarks on the amendment, or he may prefer to write to me on these matters.
	Amendment No. 142ZA requires that,
	"for a period of 60 days; or . . . until [a person] secures adequate accommodation and support, whichever is the sooner",
	the support should continue. I wonder what the definition of "adequate accommodation" is in these circumstances, and who decides what is "adequate"; and, indeed, whether the term covers the quality, size or location of the accommodation. This could be a sensitive issue.
	It may be asked who could possibly object to Amendment No. 146A; namely, to the idea that someone should receive housing information and advice free of charge and in the language suited to that person's needs. One would hope that that is best practice and that all local authorities now follow it. If they do not, they jolly well ought to get on and do it.
	I come from a town where the local authority has made its best efforts to provide such information over many years. I know that the advice has not always been perfect, but the authority tries to cover such languages as are commonly used in the area. Twelve per cent of the population in our constituency do not have English as their first language.
	I have a couple of questions on Amendment No. 238A. It points out that any increase in spending as a result of these duties ought to be payable by the Secretary of State. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Best, has been given by those briefing him an estimate of the annual cost of this proposal in terms of the increase over the next five years, so that one can understand just what kind of costs one is looking at. The question that I have to ask from the LGA's point of view is: would these sums be ring-fenced? The local authorities are keen not to have sums ring-fenced because of their intention to be as much in control of local funding as possible.
	As those are detailed questions, I shall be happy if the noble Lord would prefer to write to me rather than attempt to answer them now.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I join in the tributes on all sides of the Committee to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for bringing forward these amendments and for the way in which he has addressed the issues. His insights and experience will greatly refresh our debates in such matters and expand our range of experience in dealing with some difficult issues.
	Having said that, and underlining that we fully understand the concerns raised by the noble Lord, I have to conclude that we believe them to be unnecessary. As has been acknowledged, we have extended the period from 14 to 28 days so the period of grace is longer. That was in the light of experience which suggested that it was an important point to match.
	We are also working closely with all interested parties through the national refugee integration forum to promote the better resettlement and integration into the community of successful asylum seekers. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, properly raised the need to take the issues seriously. The Government do so. For that reason we have this legislation in place. For that reason, we have put in place a battery of measures to ensure that those who seek, quite properly, to stay here as asylum seekers are cared for and are integrated fully into our communities.
	The Home Office is working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions to improve the arrangements for enabling asylum seekers to transfer from central government support to mainstream benefits or to enter the labour market. We acknowledge—the noble Lord, Lord Best, made the point well—that there have been some difficulties with national insurance numbers. We recognise that there have been delays but we are working hard with the DWP to improve performance and ensure that people are properly accorded a national insurance number and can enter the labour market when they wish with all the support and guidance that they require.
	Amendment No. 146A seeks to help asylum seekers with leave to remain into accommodation and ensure that they have proper allocation of accommodation. We want to ensure that that is so. In the Homelessness Act 2002 an amendment to Section 166 of the Housing Act 1996 requires the local housing authority to secure that advice and information are available free of charge to persons in its area about the right to make an application for allocation of housing accommodation; and that any necessary assistance in making that application is available free of charge to persons in the area who are likely to have difficulty in doing so without assistance. That measure was aimed at ensuring that people in the circumstances described by the noble Lord are given all the help they require. It seems to me to meet the principal aims of the noble Lord's amendment.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, rightly pointed to good practice in local government. I am certain that most local authorities will do all they can to ensure that advice, assistance and support are given in the most appropriate form. My former local authority did that because we believed it to be extremely important. We recognised the vulnerability of people inexperienced in the ways of the local authority and local authority bureaucracy.
	Best practice is to be celebrated and encouraged. As a Government, we shall play our part in doing that. Great progress has been made. Local authorities are to be congratulated, as is the Local Government Association on the important work it has done in that field.
	The noble Lord wishes to ensure that Amendment No. 146A is accepted. Local authorities should receive extra funding from central government for advice in respect of housing where it involves people who have been granted leave to remain following an application for asylum. We are not clear how in practice one can identify that expenditure, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay; and how one would separate that expenditure from other expenditure on housing advice in order accurately to attribute costs. We also wonder whether it would be appropriate for such a distinction to be made in the first place. The point has been well made that local authorities are nervous about and do not take easily to the exercise of ring fencing. I know that local authorities have lobbied firmly against it in the past. That is not to say that extra help should never be given to local authorities if they are faced with new and unusual pressures.
	The Government have responded in the past. We have ensured that those supporting asylum seekers under the interim scheme have been given support. We wish to ensure that that support is there in the future. However, in general the Government would not want to disturb the usual arrangements for providing central government support to local authorities under the revenue support grant.
	That said, if a case were made for extra funding, we already have a provision in Section 110 which will allow for the Secretary of State to fund local authorities for expenditure, in connection with,
	"persons who are, or have been, asylum-seekers; and . . . their dependants".
	If we thought that it was appropriate, payments could be made using that power. It is there for that express purpose. In all those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment but will withdraw it.

Earl Russell: Before the Minister sits down, can he name for me one person knowledgeable in the subject and not on the government payroll who shares his opinion that these amendments are unnecessary?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: With the greatest of respect to the noble Earl, it is a somewhat fatuous point. The Government have been putting in place a framework of measures and powers which make the system work to the best interests of those affected. In answering the noble Lord, Lord Best, I pointed out that we have powers and measures in place which enable local authorities to carry out the functions asked of them. I believe that we are providing adequate powers and measures to deal with the problem which the noble Lord, Lord Best, makes quite properly in this Chamber.

Lord Best: I am most grateful to the Committee for the support I felt from many quarters for these amendments and in particular to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his comments. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked two questions. The first was on the definition of "adequate" regarding accommodation. Guidance from the Government would need to accompany the Bill when enacted. The definition of adequate accommodation may not be a very great hurdle to cross. Properties would need to comply with the fitness standard, not be overcrowded, and meet the environmental health requirements. But one is not suggesting that this is a passport to particularly special housing in any sense. I do not believe that that is likely to be too big an obstacle.
	Secondly, if local authorities are required to provide such advice, would the costs reimbursed to local authorities for providing such advice be ring fenced? The Minister said that it may be possible for funds to be paid under Section 110. That may well be a better route. If we foist upon local authorities more duties and responsibilities but without provision for those to be paid for by central government, it may be a deterrent for them to do what is required of them.
	The cost of providing advice can be quite high if specialist interpreters have to be drawn in. I suspect that those costs would fall disproportionately on specific authorities where there are clusters and concentrations of refugees. Through amendment already made to the Homelessness Act the local authority has an obligation to provide such advice. For those extra costs to fall entirely on local authorities without recognition that they could be reimbursed might be unfair.
	I have a final point to commend the amendment. The process of speeding up decision-making on the granting of refugee status to asylum seekers is entirely admirable but it is likely, in the view of those people with whom I talked in the North East, to mean that the problems with the 28-day rule will become more severe. People will have less time in which to learn English and become familiar with the area to which they have moved before they get their notice, and are allowed to stay if they are successful or have to leave. The view from the North East, at any rate—I am sure that it is typical of other regions to which people have been dispersed—is that the 28-day rule will increasingly cause a crisis for those endeavouring to help refugees and for the refugees themselves, who are likely to turn tail and return to the communities in London and the South East where at least there will be a floor to sleep on and they will be among others of the same culture, language and so on.
	This group of amendments requires further serious consideration. We should perhaps return to the matter at the Bill's next stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Spending Review

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Statement is as follows:
	"The long-term funding we announce today for Britain's public services is possible because the bills of economic failure in unemployment and debt have been radically reduced; the state of our public finances is strong; and, despite uncertainties in the global economy, inflation is under control, interest rates have been low and stable, and employment and growth continue to rise.
	"In this period in global financial markets of greater instability, our task and our determination—as always—is to remain vigilant and committed to sustaining monetary and fiscal stability, with the strength to take the right long-term decisions. And I can tell the House that over the economic cycle we will not only meet all our fiscal disciplines and rules but we are on track to meet our fiscal disciplines and rules with a margin for prudence even on the most cautious case and even on the most cautious assumptions.
	"Indeed, it is so that we can steer a course of stability across the economic cycle that we have reduced net debt from 44 per cent of British national income in 1997 to 30.4 per cent last year—in contrast to 41 per cent in the US, 53 per cent in the euro area as a whole and 59 per cent in Japan.
	"So, as we set out in the Budget, Britain's debt has been reduced to the lowest level of national income in the G7 and the lowest of all our major European competitors.
	"Having last year paid off more debt in one year than all of the previous governments in the past 50 years, I can report that this year debt interest payments will be lower as a share of national income than they have been at any time in nearly a century.
	"Twenty years ago, debt interest payments consumed 4 per cent of national income. Debt interest is now half that: just 2 per cent—a saving worth £20 billion a year. Those extra resources have made it possible to recruit more nurses, more doctors, more teachers and more police than at any time in the past two decades.
	"Twenty years ago—indeed, 10 years ago also—1.6 per cent of national income was spent on the costs of unemployment. I can report today that this year we will spend just 0.4 per cent, savings worth a further £10 billion a year.
	"It is through maintaining a steady hand on the public finances at all times that we are able to meet our fiscal rules and match our reforms with new resources so that efficient, strong public services play their part in delivering a modern Britain of greater opportunity and security not just for some but for all.
	"I can report to the House that, holding strictly to the total spending envelope I set out in the Budget, we are raising departmental spending from £240 billion this year to £263 billion next year, to £280 billion in 2004-05, and to £301 billion in 2005-06. In total, by 2006, there will be £61 billion a year more for improved public services.
	"While 10 years ago only 50p of every pound of additional expenditure went to the public services, the rest having to be spent on debt and social security, in this review almost 80p in every additional pound is going directly to improving public services—and of the remaining 20p most is being spent not on debt interest or unemployment but on improved pensioner and children's benefits.
	"In each area of service delivery, from housing to education and from policing to defence, we are tying new resources to new reform and results, developing a modern way for running efficient public services: setting demanding national targets; performance monitored by independent and open audit and inspection; front-line staff given the power and flexibility to deliver; extending choice; rewarding success; and turning round failing services.
	"I can also tell the House that, over the next three years as we reverse the backlog in investment, our projections—other than the commitments to health paid for by national insurance—from 2006 are based on real terms increases in spending on public services at 2.5 per cent a year.
	"With this review's decisions we not only will continue to address past decades of chronic under-investment in education, health, transport and housing but we will rise to new challenges in a changed global environment—challenges internationally including the essential duty of fighting terrorism, and challenges here at home as global economic competition brings vastly increased opportunities but also increased insecurities: the role for government—by expanding educational, employment and economic opportunity and by encouraging stronger communities—to enable and empower people to make globalisation work for their families and their future.
	"First, to respond to global insecurities and the new fight against terrorism, the Secretary of State for Defence is announcing that the budget for our Armed Forces who have served our country overseas with courage and distinction, not only in Afghanistan but recently in Kosovo, Macedonia and Sierra Leone, will rise from £29.3 billion this year to £32.8 billion by 2005-06: £3.5 billion a year higher. That is the largest sustained real terms increase in defence spending in 20 years.
	"Since the tragic events of September 11th, international co-operation—and, led by the Prime Minister, Britain's international engagement—has assumed a new importance. So the Foreign Secretary's budget will rise from £1.3 billion this year to £1.5 billion by 2005–06. Within this we will strengthen the work of the British Council, whose budget will rise from £157 million a year to £185 million—and the budget for the BBC World Service, whose 160 million a week audience is now its largest ever, will be £38 million a year higher by 2005–06.
	"In meeting the urgent moral challenge of combating international poverty, the question is how a strengthened commitment by our country can inspire a step change in aid from all the richest countries in order to fulfil the millennium development goals: to halve poverty, cut child mortality by two-thirds and deliver primary education for all.
	"So the Secretary of State for International Development is announcing a rise in UK aid from the £2 billion it was in 1997, and the £3.3 billion last year, to £4.9 billion by 2006—the biggest ever rise. That is a 35 per cent real terms increase since 2001 and a 93 per cent real terms increase since 1997, from the 0.26 per cent of national income we inherited and 0.32 per cent today to 0.4 per cent by 2006. And by untying aid and targeting aid on the poorest countries, we ensure that more money goes to tackle poverty than at any time in the history of British aid.
	"Starting with our dialogue with Churches and non-governmental organisations next week, onwards to September's Johannesburg summit and IMF-World Bank meetings, we want this new finance from our country to be an encouragement and a signal for a new 50 billion dollar international financing facility involving all rich countries: a new alliance against poverty which recognises that by meeting our moral obligations to the poorest of the world we advance opportunity and security for all of the world.
	"At the heart of our spending decisions this year is a set of major economic reforms to expand our national wealth so that Britain can be more productive and prosperous and make the most of new opportunities in the global economy. Invention and innovation are the key to long-term national competitiveness, so in partnership with the Wellcome Trust we will create and fund a new national centre for excellence in science teaching and, after rigorous selection of priorities within the industry budget away from the old loss-making subsidies of the past, I can announce a 10 per cent real terms annual rise in the science budget and, by 2005-06, £1.25 billion extra a year for science.
	"Britain must not make the mistakes in science education in the next generation that we made in the last and so, to fund a new generation of young British scientists, we will implement the Roberts report—on average a £4,000 rise in science post-doctoral research council pay, with the average stipend for research council PhD students rising to over £13,000 by 2005–06—even after inflation, twice what it was in 1997.
	"We will encourage a third role for universities beyond teaching and research—the commercialisation of new discoveries—with the Higher Education Innovation Fund rising to £90 million a year by 2005–06 to ensure that more British inventions become British manufactured products, creating British jobs.
	"To remove barriers to productivity growth in the north and south of our country, the Deputy Prime Minister will this week announce reforms to our planning system, including new business planning zones to ensure development and create jobs in high unemployment areas. He will also announce new funds and plans for meeting housing needs south and north—throughout the country—ensuring we make good use of the space in our existing towns and cities while protecting valuable countryside around them.
	"Because a successful rural economy is vital to both rural areas and our entire economy, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is announcing today she will implement the core recommendations of the Curry report to promote sustainable farming. To make this possible, and to improve Britain's flood defences, her budget will rise from £2.5 billion this year to £2.9 billion in 2005–06—an annual average rise of 2.7 per cent a year after inflation.
	"To secure balanced economic development in every region—tackling regional weaknesses, building on regional manufacturing and industrial strengths—we must decentralise decision-making out of Whitehall. I can announce that our nine regional development agencies will now have a strengthened local role in transport, tourism and housing. To pilot further devolution from Whitehall for services to small businesses and adult skills, and to reverse decades of indifference to and neglect of our regions, budgets for RDAs will rise from £1.6 billion this year to—by 2005-06—£2 billion a year, as local people make more of the decisions about meeting local needs.
	"Addressing the long-term under-investment and neglect of transport is vital to both economic prosperity and our quality of life. To deliver the 10-year plan, the transport budget will rise from £7.7 billion this year to £11.6 billion in 2005–06—in total, over the next three years, a 12 per cent a year real terms increase. The Transport Secretary will also consult on the long-term need to increase airport capacity.
	"To secure a more competitive environment and to root out anti-competitive practices, the budget of the Office of Fair Trading will increase from £34 million this year to £55 million by 2005–06. We are determined that everything is done to ensure the highest corporate standards and next week, in the light of Enron, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will put before the House the interim report on accounting and audit reforms.
	"There are now 1.5 million more men and women in work than five years ago and unemployment in Britain is now lower than in Japan, lower than in America, lower than in every other major European country. For the first time for 50 years Britain has the lowest unemployment of any major industrialised nation. But, because we will never be complacent as long as people who can work are out of work, we need further reforms matching rights and responsibilities to help people acquire more flexible skills and new jobs so they can succeed in the changed global economy.
	"Having in the last five years ensured that 1,750,000 men and women have benefited from the New Deal, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will roll out nation-wide by 2006 the successful Jobcentre Plus one-stop service, helping young and adult unemployed, lone parents and the disabled seeking work.
	"Having already raised further education student numbers to 4 million and raised modern apprenticeships from 75,000 in 1997 to 220,000 today, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills will announce new money and tough targets to reform further education, improve workplace skills and expand modern apprenticeships to over 300,000 in 2004.
	"To ensure British business has the skills it urgently needs today, the Home Secretary will expand the work permit system for key workers from 50,000 in 1997 to an expected 175,000 next year.
	"While overall there are 60,000 more small businesses than there were in 1997, even more British people should have the opportunity to become self-employed or start their own firm. So the corporate tax cuts in the Budget and the stamp duty exemptions for high unemployment areas are matched in this review with new help for start-ups by raising the Small Business Service budget and by extending and increasing the Phoenix Fund from £100,000 to £150,000.
	"To meet our long-term aim that in every area of the country every pupil is introduced not just to the world of work but to the world of business, we will fund an expansion of enterprise education from less than 1,000 schools today to all our 3,500 secondary schools.
	"One of the greatest challenges to our future is to protect and safeguard our environment through sustainable development and to advance towards our 2010 targets—20 per cent less carbon dioxide emissions, 10 per cent of electricity from renewable sources. The spending review will, in addition to financing the £100,000 fund for the development of renewable technologies, provide in 2005–06 an additional £38 million for sustainable energy initiatives.
	"Let me now turn to the public service investments this spending review makes to help those who contribute through public service to build stronger, more secure communities.
	"We know that an enterprising economy with opportunity for all requires a fair society where there is security for all. But we also know, those of us who believe in the importance of public services, that we have a special duty to make sure public money is spent wisely and efficiently, and we are as determined to secure value for money as we are to secure money for services.
	"So, first, the Government are today publishing new public service agreements setting out agreed outcome targets and reforms for each department. Second, with independent audit and statutory inspection, departments and agencies will be fully accountable for performance against targets. So in addition to the new Police Standards Unit we are creating the new health and social care inspectorates, a reformed criminal justice system inspection regime and a single Housing Inspectorate. Third, in each service area the review's decisions promote choice and devolve responsibility, authority and flexibility from the centre out to local and regional decision-making—to primary care trusts, head teachers and governors in schools, police commanders, and local service providers.
	"One essential feature of this year's spending decisions is that voluntary, charitable and community organisations will also receive significantly increased funding to support their chosen role in delivering local services.
	"Just as sustained economic growth demands responsibility in setting private sector pay, so too a sustained commitment to better public services demands responsibility in setting public sector pay.
	"When a service is underfunded or when it is under-performing, people are let down. So while public service providers who perform well will be given more resources and more authority to innovate, in this review departments have set as a condition for more resources that failing institutions will be dealt with early and decisively.
	"Poor-performing schools will be subject to takeover by new leadership or by a neighbouring school, or closed and reopened as a new school. Failing local education authorities will be subject to takeover by high-performing authorities. Poorly performing colleges will be subject to loss of funding from learning and skills councils with provisions for necessary college mergers. Poor-performing social services and housing departments will have new directors and senior managers. Poor-performing local authorities will first be subject to a recovery plan to tackle bad performance and, if this is insufficient, will be subject to new managers or takeover of functions. Just as the Home Secretary is taking power for police reform, prisons that under-perform will need to improve or face new management drafted in. But in every case at the same time we will also incentivise and reward success, with high-performing institutions receiving new resources and greater autonomy, new freedoms and more flexibility.
	"So just as in the Budget resources for health were matched by reforms in health, so too behind each decision we are making today—from housing to crime, from urban renewal to education—the Government's standard is clear: for more given in resources, more is required in results. This is our modern vision for public services. I can now announce new investments that will improve our services and strengthen our communities.
	"After long decades of persistent neglect that left Britain's housing stock inadequate and substandard, since 1997 we have increased our investment in housing from £2.3 billion to £4.8 billion this year. Now, as the demand for new and better housing grows in a growing economy, it is time for a further step change, with the most sustained rise in housing investment for 25 years.
	"On Thursday the Deputy Prime Minister will make a Statement to the House on his reforms: new homes for social tenants and key workers, including low-cost home ownership in London and the South East and plans to tackle homelessness and upgrade old properties in all regions where housing need exists. To pay for this, by 2005–06 we will invest £5.9 billion a year—a 105 per cent real-terms rise in housing budgets since 1997.
	"Neighbourhood renewal is not just about bricks and mortar; it is about renewing community life. This depends on more economic activity, more businesses and more jobs. Having raised investment in social and economic regeneration in 88 hard-pressed neighbourhoods to £300 million this year, we will increase the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund again to £525 million a year by 2005–06.
	"As we sign public service agreements with our local authorities to match resources to reform, the Deputy Prime Minister will set out details on Thursday of an annual real-terms rise for local government of 4.2 per cent a year over and above inflation—well above the average settlements until 1997.
	"The mark of a decent society is the dignity it accords its elderly. So the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is announcing the extra resources necessary to deliver the pension credit to nearly half all pensioner households from October next year—worth up to £14 extra per week for single pensioners. That is a measure for which I hope there will soon be all-party support. Following the Pickering and Sandler reports, a consultative Green Paper will be published in the autumn, while the Secretary of State for Health will announce how the extra 6 per cent real-terms growth in social services budgets will improve community care for the elderly.
	"Britain's disabled need and deserve a better deal. So I can also announce that, having created the Disability Rights Commission to oversee and enforce the rights of disabled people, we will raise its budget to 2006 by 14 per cent in real terms.
	"I have said to this House that our children are 20 per cent of our population but 100 per cent of our future. So to realise our goals of nursery education, better childcare and a sure start for the very young, I am announcing, after a major interdepartmental review, details of a new integrated budget for children—for childcare and early-years learning—worth by 2005–06 a total of £1.5 billion a year. Following the review, there will be new ministerial arrangements for childcare policy.
	"By October 2004, every three and four year-old who needs it will have a nursery school place. We are also expanding Sure Start to meet the needs of up to 400,000 children. We will now increase investment in childcare, with funding for an additional 250,000 childcare places.
	"Parents have said to us that communities are far stronger and children far more secure where there is a focal point for a wide range of children's services. So I can announce that we will fund the creation of children's centres across the country, providing services for an additional 300,000 children by 2005–06.
	"At the heart of the next stage of children's services are voluntary and community partnerships that are increasingly a vital link between the needs children have and the help they receive. In each of our constituencies there are hundreds of voluntary and community organisations. Throughout the country, hundreds of thousands of volunteers help millions of people, giving everyone in Britain at different times in our lives the chance to serve, to get the balance right between what we do for our country and what our country does for us.
	"So that the vitality and independence of the charity, community and voluntary sector can grow and flourish, the Chief Secretary is today announcing details of a new three-year fund of £125 million that voluntary organisations can draw upon for their public service work. I can also confirm that the budget for the children's fund, helping volunteers and charities assist vulnerable children, will be £200 million a year to 2006. There will be an additional £25 million over three years to support the growth of local parental support. We are also extending the £20 million support to community amateur sports clubs, not just for one year, but for each year to 2006.
	"Since museums were opened free to the public there has been a 75 per cent rise in attendances. The Secretary of State is announcing a budget increase for culture, media and sport, including additional funds for tourism, from £1.3 billion this year to £1.6 billion by 2005-06. With this increase, Britain will maintain free access to national museums, invest in regional museums, expand local creative arts partnerships and, to open up sport to all, there will be not only additional support for sports clubs but funds for much needed investment in school sports facilities and new finance for extra sports coaching in the years to 2006—in time for the next World Cup. Similar allocations are necessary and will be made for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
	"Stronger communities must be safer communities where rights are matched by responsibilities. So we are committed to getting more police out on to the streets and to making crime fighting more effective. With his new reforms in place, the Home Secretary will announce the details of the rise in the Home Office budget from £10.7 billion this year to £13.5 billion by 2005–06—an increase of nearly £2.9 billion a year by 2005–06. This will ensure that, in addition to police numbers rising next year to 130,000, there can be reforms to speed up the asylum system, to strengthen internal security and to enable the criminal justice system to tackle both crime and the causes of crime.
	"The long-term vision for the criminal justice system—and how we match policies for opportunity for all with policies for security for all—will be provided by the Home Secretary when he publishes the criminal justice White Paper.
	"Ministers in the devolved administrations will make separate announcements outlining their plans to allocate the additional £4.1 billion a year set aside by 2005–06 for all devolved functions in Scotland, £2.3 billion pounds a year more by 2005–06 for Wales, including continued funding of Objective 1 by 2006, and £1.2 billion a year more by 2005–06 for Northern Ireland, including funding of the European peace initiative.
	"I turn to education. What happens in our schools in this decade will shape our society and our economy for much of this century. We cannot equip children for the 21st century in classrooms built in the 19th. So capital investment to modernise our schools, which was raised from £680 million in 1997 to £2.25 billion last year, will be raised again to £4.5 billion a year by 2005–06—a 400 per cent real-terms increase since 1997 in capital investment, backing up our additional 20,000 teachers.
	"The increased funds for investment, improved access and excellence in further and higher education—including our universities, building on the 100,000 additional students since 1997—and the reforms essential to meet our targets will be announced by the Secretary of State for Education and skills. But we will only achieve our goals for further and higher education if we persuade more young people to stay on at school. Thirty years ago, the school leaving age was raised to 16. But Britain cannot reach its full potential as long as nearly a quarter of 16 to 18 year-olds are not in education or training. For decades Britain has suffered the worst drop-out rate from school of any industrialised country.
	"The Secretary of State for Education and Skills has set out reforms to the curriculum for 14 to 19 year-olds. We must now ensure that no one is prevented from staying on for the qualifications they need through lack of income.
	"Already, in one-third of England, income-related education maintenance allowances have substantially raised staying-on rates. So I can announce today that, from September 2004, we shall extend this successful experiment to all the country with, for those who stay on and study, education maintenance allowances worth up to £1,500 a year. We shall fund this major advance in educational opportunity from savings that we have made from our success in reducing unemployment and debt. Demanding the highest standards for all is the modern route to realising opportunity for all.
	"Those of us seeking improvements in education are determined that the numbers in the education budget are matched by reform to secure better results for pupils in schools all across the country. As we said in detail in our 1997 manifesto, resources and reform are equally important—one cannot be achieved without the other.
	"Having helped teachers and children to achieve a step change in standards in primary schools—today 75 per cent achieve the expected literacy standards at the age of 11 compared with just 57 per cent five years previously—the Education Secretary will tomorrow announce her reforms to raise standards, enhance choice and diversity, and tackle poor pupil behaviour in our secondary schools so that schools can develop the talents of all. We shall back those reforms with resources.
	"In the 2000 Budget, the Government introduced a single payment direct to schools starting at £15,000 for primary schools. I can announce that to help to deliver schools reforms, the details of which will be set out by the Secretary of State for Education, the typical primary school will receive £50,000 next April—£10,000 higher than this year—and £50,000 each April for the next two years to 2005–06.
	"Head teachers of the typical secondary school, who this April received a payment of £115,000, will receive next April a payment of £165,000—£50,000 more—rising to £180,000 each April for the next two years. Over three years, for the typical secondary school, a total of £0.5 million in direct payments will be paid to every head teacher to be used for each school's priorities.
	"We must also back good leadership, which is raising achievement levels in the most challenging areas, and help schools that are behind to catch up as we set minimum targets for improved standards at 14 and 16. So, for 1,400 secondary schools we shall match demanding new performance targets with an extra annual payment of an additional £125,000 direct to each school and direct to each head teacher. For those 1,400 schools, combining this leadership incentive grant and the direct payments that I have already announced, the budget for head teachers will rise to £300,000 a year. Over three years almost £1 million will allow our schools to replace weak leadership, attract the best teachers and improve their facilities.
	"For this Government, reform and resources go together. We know that to demand reform when you would deny resources is a betrayal of our children. So I can now announce the total new resources for education. Compared with growth of lower than 2 per cent a year in the 18 years to 1997, there will be a real terms rise for education in England, even after inflation, of 6 per cent a year for each of the next three years—the biggest sustained rise in a generation.
	"The education budget for England, which was £29 billion in 1997 and £45 billion this year, will rise year on year over the next three years to £49 billion, £53 billion and then £58 billion. That is what we mean by "education, education, education". By 2005-06, £15 billion more a year will be available for UK education and £13 billion more in England.
	"Spending per pupil, which was just £2,700 a year in 1997 and £3,500 last year, will rise to £4,900 per pupil by 2005–06. After inflation, that is 50 per cent more per pupil than in 1997. I challenge anyone in this House to claim that public services are their priority and then to say that £4,900 per pupil is too much to invest in our children's and this country's future.
	"This is a Budget for the health service, a spending review for education, and, as we promised, schools and hospitals first. I commend the Statement to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Saatchi: My Lords, first, I congratulate the Minister on his delivery of the Statement and wish his sore throat better as soon as possible. I also say straight away that there are several aspects of the Minister's Statement that we want to study in more detail and others to which we are happy to give a welcome immediately—in particular, the extra spending on the war on terrorism and defence and also the increased budget for international development.
	Of course, as the Minister said, it is also a fine and worthy aim to help students to stay longer in school. Perhaps he will comment later on how that might be paid for and, in particular, whether child benefit will continue as a universal allowance.
	Having said that, I wonder whether, after that stirring performance, the Minister would be disappointed to learn that in the latest research in word association tests, in which people are invited to select the word from a list which they most identify with the Government, the word that they now pick is "disappointment". That may be because this is the third time that the Government have announced the results of a major spending review; it is the third time that people have heard how much more money is to be spent department by department; and it is the third time that the Chancellor has made promises about improving our schools, hospitals, transport and so on.
	But, after six Budgets, five years in office and three spending reviews, the outline of an unattractive conclusion is beginning to form in people's minds; namely, the Government may not know how to bring about the improvements in public services that they want to see. Therefore, as I believe the Government say, this Statement is a defining moment for them.
	It was in this year's Budget that the Government, ever watchful of the public mood, sensing the danger and running out of the clever taxing and accounting devices on which they had relied successfully for many years, hit on a startling new plan. In this Budget, a new concept emerged in the Government's mission statement—a most blasphemous of possibilities that one hardly dares whisper its name. It was "sincerity".
	Before this Budget, any impertinent functionary in the Treasury who embarked on the route of openly justifying tax rises, perhaps with a page of prose of engaging frankness, would find that a bolt of lightning struck the pen from his hand. But now, perhaps unable to find more invisible tax rises and nervous that the public might see through them in any case, the Government declared that in order to pay for all the spending about which we have just heard there would be more tax in the form of national insurance contributions which would be spent, in particular, on health. What mean-spirited curmudgeon, they reckoned, could disagree with that?
	But the eye of the public, which is always restless in its quest for a true picture of the activities of our Government, sees instead that the money being raised is either not spent on health or, if it is spent, is ineffective. I refer your Lordships to a particularly helpful page in the Government's Budget Red Book which shows the impact of the national insurance contribution increases as raising personal tax by £4.6 billion. But one searches in vain for the equivalent amount being spent on health. Instead, in the same table one finds that the exact same amount—that is, £4.6 billion—is shown to have been spent not on health but on the Government's tax credits. Therefore, all the money ostensibly being raised for health is not being spent on hospitals but on benefits.
	The Minister will say shortly that other money is being spent on health. "No", he says, "it's not hypothecated money to health", but "yes", he says, "it will be spent". Therefore, the question remains: why does it seem to have no effect and why are the public disappointed? The answer lies in what I believe to be the most accurate gauge of public sector inflation. For some reason, it is known as the "GDP deflator for government consumption". In the five years to 1998 it rose by 2.2 per cent a year. By the end of 1999 it was running at 4 per cent, rising to 5.75 per cent in 2000. In the last financial year to the end of March the figure was 6.5 per cent. That is three times the economy's overall inflation rate of 1.8 per cent.
	Coming up to date, in the first quarter of this year public spending rose at an annual rate of 11 per cent. How can such a large increase have so little effect? It is because 59 per cent of that sum was eaten up by higher wages and prices in the public sector. So the effective rate of increase in spending was only 4.2 per cent year on year.
	The Government now find themselves on a ratchet. They spend; they fail; so they spend even more. The public can see that too and that is why the clear message from pre-Budget and post-Budget polls is of scepticism about the direct link between spending and outcome. People have worked out that it is possible to spend more, much more, without success. For example Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have spending levels per head which are much higher than those in England and, indeed, above the European average for health. But waiting lists in Wales and Northern Ireland are much longer than those in England and waiting times in Scotland are actually going up.
	So the growing fear with this Government, perhaps reflected in the research I described, is that while they wear their heart on their sleeve about care, they do not seem to know how to make their good intentions come true. Take, for example, what the Chancellor calls,
	"The first challenge is to increase our productivity".—[Official Report, 25/11/97; col. 773.]
	That was five years ago, and what happened? The latest figures actually show a fall in productivity in the first quarter of the year. The Government see that productivity gap with our competitors as an opportunity. They say it gives us, "increased room for catch-up". To avoid catch-up problems in the public services the Chancellor says that he is going to have new reviews and reports, targets, procedures and checks, and inspectors and audits. But in a striking passage in the Statement on the subject of value for money in the public services, the Minister described a system of rewards and punishment that would follow success and failure in delivery. In saying that he reminded us of what the Chief Secretary said; that is,
	"Money will only be released if the Government are satisfied we are getting the returns we want".
	That was four years ago.
	Do the Government think they will increase the productivity of the public services if they issue a new regulation every 20 minutes, as they do for business? Or will they issue 4,440 pages to hospitals next year—17 pages of rules every day—as they did to schools last year? Or will it be a czar that will make all the difference or a new No. 10 delivery unit? The public can see that the strategy has not worked and they can see why; that is, without real reform spending is not the answer.
	Perhaps I can leave to one side the question of why the spending does not seem to have worked and why people may be disappointed with the results and turn to another aspect of the Statement which may be equally of interest. It concerns the effect of the failed spending effort on the economy as a whole. Let us consider the example the Government are setting to households in Britain. They say in the Statement that we can spend more than our income. So with government income (on their own estimates) growing by 2.5 per cent, they will spend 4.3 per cent more a year. The public duly take their cue.
	The size of outstanding household debt, including mortgage debt, has soared. As a ratio of annual disposable income it is at an all-time high at more than 100 per cent. Non-mortgage consumer credit is growing at 12.4 per cent a year while mortgage lending is growing at 9 per cent a year. As with the Government, underlying incomes are growing more slowly at only 5 per cent, so household finances are becoming stretched. So are the Government's.
	How much more will the Government need to borrow to meet the plans we heard set out in the Statement? The Statement said that the spending plans were possible because of what the Government had achieved in debt reduction. Why then do the Government plan to borrow over the next five years twice as much as they repaid in debt in their first few years? That is according to their own figures. More realistically, according to economists, undershooting tax revenues because of an economic slow-down suggests that we could expect the PSNB to approach £20 billion this year, £30 billion next year and £35 billion in 2004–05.
	As we are all aware, independent forecasters have been steadily downgrading predictions for GDP growth this year. Consensus expectations have dropped to 1.7 per cent compared with 1.8 per cent in June. Some forecasts are now as low as 1.2 per cent. Remember, the Chancellor's Budget forecast on which this spending plan is based is for a growth of 2.5 per cent this year and 3 to 3.5 per cent next year.
	The spending plans in the Statement threaten all the theoretical economic foundations on which the Chancellor's framework is built. The framework's three main pillars—the independence of the Bank of England, the symmetrical inflation target and the code for fiscal stability—are all much less solid than the Minister might like to think.
	Can we be saved by the EU and its growth and stability pact which sets limits on government spending? I doubt that. The pact only applies to small countries. For big countries, as Francis Mer, the new Finance Minister of France, said,
	"Le pacte de stabilite Europeest pas inscrit dans le marbre".
	So we are not going to endorse the Government's failed approach to public services today. Our Benches will not support their policy of spending without change. That does not mean that we are against spending more on education and the other services the Minister described. But we are against his plans to spend more without real reform because, as the record seems to show, it does not work.
	If this gathering gloom were not enough, the Chancellor will soon face a stark reminder of the dark days of industrial strife. On 17th July 1.3 million public sector workers, supposed to be the beneficiaries of the Statement, are planning a one-day pay strike—the biggest industrial action for more than 20 years. The Government must be disappointed. If they would tax more, spend more and achieve something, that would be fine. If they would tax less, spend less and leave things alone, that would be finer still for some. But to tax more, spend more and make things worse is not going to be acceptable for long. O si sic omnes: if only everyone were sick of it.

Lord Newby: My Lords, we on these Benches in general welcome the principles which underlie the Comprehensive Spending Review; namely, the need for greater levels of expenditure on our main public services and, secondly, the need to raise levels of general taxation which provide for that. That was the basis on which we fought the election (incidentally, it was not the basis on which the Government fought the election) because we believed that the key concerns of all sectors of British society—prosperous Britain, middle Britain and poorer Britain—had to do with the quality of public services which they were receiving. The quality of private goods and services they bought were often much higher than the public goods and services from which they benefited and, as with consumer goods, they wanted better quality services and were prepared to pay for them.
	As consumers of public services we all want to know two principal things. First, how well will our taxes be spent; secondly, how fairly will our taxes be raised?
	Today is not primarily about raising taxes, although the level of planned increase in expenditure raises important issues about what happens if the Government's growth targets are not met and also what happens at the end of the period. Have we reached nirvana at the end of the CSR period or are further expenditure and tax increases planned?
	Today's key questions relate to how effectively the increased expenditure is distributed. In my view it is hardly surprising that up to now we have not had much to see for the increased spending under this Government, at least in some services. In 1999 many institutions were in debt, and in the case of schools, many of them illegally so. Many staff, particularly at the lower end of the scale, were extremely badly paid. I cannot disagree too strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, said on Friday in criticising the Government for allowing public sector pay to increase compared with private sector comparators. The Tories, as an act of policy, held down public sector pay disgracefully, and a correction was sorely needed. So much of the increased expenditure of the past three years has been making up the ravages of what went before.
	For the period of the CSR, very large additional amounts will be spent and we must see results. The Government seek to improve their effectiveness by organisational change and, even more importantly, by targets. Why should we believe that the targets will be more effective in the future than in the past? A large proportion of the targets set under the Government's public service agreement have simply not been met. The 1945 Labour government believed that the gentlemen in Whitehall knew best; this Government tend to believe that only the gentlemen—it is still nearly always gentlemen—in the Treasury know best and they are setting down ever more targets for hard-pressed public sector workers to follow.
	How do the Government believe that the changes that they seek can be met by micro-management from Whitehall? What kind of sense provides for no political accountability, for example, in the health service between the lowest organisational level and the Secretary of State? Why, for example, did the Government in the recent White Paper on regional government envisage that in health and in education, to name but two, there would be virtually no role for regional assemblies? When the Statement says that they seek to reverse decades of indifference and neglect of our regions by modest increases in the budgets of RDAs, who are they kidding? People across the regions need to be engaged; it cannot be done simply by giving a little more money to unelected RDAs.
	On the subject of local democracy, is it a coincidence that the only time the phrase "local authority" appears in the Statement is when the Government explain what they will do with local authorities that appear to have failed? On the general matter of delivery and the allocation of resources, why does the review contain no review of the Barnett formula? Why is there no attempt to match grants for the English regions to their specific needs?
	On education I have two questions. First, when the Government talk about 1,400 secondary schools receiving an additional payment of £125,000 direct to each school, they refer to schools that will,
	"match demanding new performance targets".
	What on earth does that mean? Does it mean that those schools are failing schools which they want to improve? Does it mean that they are specialist schools that they want to become beacons? Does it mean that they are educational priority schools? The paragraph is typical government speak which, frankly, is completely incomprehensible at first sight.
	Secondly, where does the CSR leave the Government's plans for 50 per cent of school leavers to attend university? Why will the Government not admit that the negligible increase in numbers applying to universities in England last year—less than 1 per cent—was because many potential students from poorer families feared that a debt of £12,000 to £15,000 at the end of their studies was insupportable?
	In the absence of a greater willingness on the part of government to devolve decision making in public services, to set professionals free to manage without constant interference from Whitehall and to give local communities greater say, our fear is that the justifiable increases in expenditure in this review will not be most effectively spent and that the case for well-funded, universally available public services will be seriously damaged. The challenge for the Government is to prove that fear unfounded.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on Friday when we had a rather short, ill attended, but high-quality debate on the Finance Bill. I was impressed by how little either opposition party had learned about the way in which Finance Bills are constructed or the way in which the 2002 Budget was constructed. Today I am reassured in the sense that both the noble Lords, Lord Saatchi and Lord Newby, in their speeches, appear to have taken account of what I said on Friday. But, so far as I can see, they have not taken any account of what the Chancellor said today. Perhaps we need another debate so that they can catch up.
	In what appeared to me—I know that I am prejudiced, but you will allow that—to be an outstanding description, not only of plans for the future, of resources, and of targets, but also of achievement over the past five years, the Chancellor, every time he addressed an issue of public policy or an issue of public service, was saying not only what we shall do over the next three years, but also what we have done over the past five years.
	What did noble Lords opposite believe that the Chancellor was saying about primary schools? Do they not believe that increases in literacy targets are important? What did they believe was being said about the growth in employment, the closing of the employment trap, the way in which we have, over the past five years, attained a figure of a million and a half more people in work? That could be done with a favourable economy inherited from a benign previous government; it could all be to the credit of Mr Kenneth Clarke. But that excuse has now worn thin. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, knows that that is not true, as does the noble Lord, Lord Newby.
	They know that what is true is that there has been an increase in employment and that we have the lowest unemployment in the developed world because of the policies of this Government. The Government have made that possible through economic stability, through the minimum wage, through making work pay, through employment credits and through the encouragement of business and manufacturing industry. The Government have achieved those extraordinarily—I use the word advisedly—successful results. I heard in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, no recognition, and in that of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, little recognition of that catalogue of success that the Chancellor was able to give to the House of Commons this afternoon.
	Every time the Chancellor talked about increased spending, he talked about improved performance. I take the example of health, although that was dealt with in more detail at the time of the Budget rather than in the Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, says that increased expenditure on health is accounted for by higher wages. The increase has not resulted in higher wages per doctor, but there is a higher wages bill because we have more doctors, more nurses and more people working in our hospitals and because more operations are being carried out and more patients are being treated. That is the reason for higher expenditure in our National Health Service.
	I wrote down in capital letters what the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, said as it struck me as a real give-away: "Without real reform spending is not the answer". Later he said, "We will not support spending without change". What on earth did he believe the Chancellor was saying? What was the 30-minute Statement about except to say that without real reform spending is not the answer and the corollary that without a commitment to the resources necessary all talk of reform is a sham. Frankly, unless the Conservative Party makes up its mind whether it supports the expenditure that we believe necessary for our public services and unless it either supports or says what it will do if it does not support us on the spending plans, no one will listen to what it says about reform.
	Dr Liam Fox has wandered around Europe. He has come to a stop in Germany. Apparently he thinks that the peculiar blend of social insurance which Germany has—and which has been working rather badly since the incorporation of East Germany—is the solution. He will come forward to us with that solution in due course.
	We know—because we know the truth and it became apparent—that Dr Fox's idea was first to convince people that the health service was not working in order to convince them that there was some magical solution other than public expenditure on health.
	I do not think that much has been learned by the party opposite in the past five years. The same old charges come up. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, talked about 11 per cent public sector inflation. Public spending has risen overall by only 2.1 per cent in real terms each year over the past five years. Higher expenditure on services is due to the low growth in social security and the huge fall each year in debt interest payments. Public sector pay, which the noble Lord believes is where all the money will go, is projected to rise by just 1.6 per cent in real terms each year. So public expenditure is not being swallowed up by pay.
	The accusation, which is never quite openly made, is that somehow we are working towards a crisis in our public finances and that it will all end in grief. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, did not quite come out in the open with that. He knows as well as I—and as the House knows perfectly well—that our projections for the period up to 2006 show us with a credit balance. At every stage in the past five years we have said that we would have one. We have proved that to be right.
	In the Red Books of the last couple of Conservative Chancellors—I shall say only the last couple in order to be kind to some of the earlier ones—the public finances projections made have proved every time to be not just over-optimistic but wildly over-optimistic. They were never achieved year on year. Ours have always been achieved.
	Fundamentally, our targets are about setting clear goals for services. There is not a multiplicity of targets. Public spending agreements have gone down from 200 to 130. They let devolved management get on with the job. I believe that that is the right way. I do not believe that the comments of noble Lords opposite have even started to dent the Chancellor's determination.

Lord Jones: My Lords, I welcome this remarkable Statement. Does my noble friend the Minister discern the determination by Her Majesty's Government to promote, assist and defend Britain's manufacturing base? I remind my noble friend of the difficulties of the steel industry in Britain, and not least of the many jobs lost in Wales. Does my noble friend agree that Britain's premier exporting industry— aerospace—is worthy of a larger grant for research and development? A Britain shorn of her manufacturing will lose her greatness. But I end as I begin—overall, it is a remarkable and welcome Statement.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jones for what he says about the Statement in general. I acknowledge the difficulty through which manufacturing industry has been going, and in particular the industries to which he refers. He will have been as encouraged as I was to learn that after a difficult period we are returning to growth in manufacturing industry. After a period of virtually no growth since the year 2000 there are signs of an upturn in manufacturing industry.
	My noble friend will also appreciate—he will have a chance to read this in more detail—that the spending review encourages manufacturing industry at its base rather than at the front line. It is the increase in the science budget, the reforms in science teaching and the credits for research and development which are surely the way that a manufacturing industry in the future—which may not be the same as a manufacturing industry in the past—will flourish. That is what the Chancellor is determined to achieve.

Lord Boardman: My Lords, does the Minister recall that the Chancellor in his speech claimed credit for his prudence and good management in reducing the public debt to a level below that achieved by many governments in the past? What he failed to do was to explain on any of these occasions how he managed to do it. Of course the reduction in public debt was largely due to the,
	"unanticipated Spectrum receipts",
	to which he did not refer, which as one can glean from the Red Book with care, amounted to a reduction of £22 billion—£22,000 million. The Government achieved that windfall by the sale of licences for the use of telephones. The Chancellor has never given any credit to that sum in his financial statements, which he frequently makes about the reduction of government debt.
	Does the Minister feel that if the Chancellor were more frank about that windfall profit—and came clean instead of claiming prudence and good management—there would be more belief and more trust in the figures that he has quoted today?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I start by expressing surprise that such a distinguished capitalist as the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, who ran a major bank with great distinction for a number years, should object to the Government getting £22 billion by selling Spectrum. I should have thought that he would be rather pleased about it.
	The Government have always recognised that a significant part of the improvement in the public finances came from the sale of Spectrum. But by no means mostly, as the noble Lord would have us believe. It was a one off. If it can be achieved again for a fourth generation, I hope that we shall have his support.
	The improvement in the public finances is much greater than the result of Spectrum's sales. The improvement in them by the reduction in payments for unemployment is much greater. The social as well as the financial effects are of enormous importance.

Lord Walker of Worcester: My Lords, in his Statement the Chancellor stressed the importance of encouraging voluntary movements. There is perhaps no greater example of voluntary effort in this country than the hospice movement. Is the Minister aware that when the Government came to power 40 per cent of capital and current expenditure of the hospice movement was funded from public expenditure? It has been reduced every year and is now down to below 28 per cent. Is there any chance that as a result of this Statement the hospice movement will start to receive the assistance that it used to receive?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am as strong a supporter of the hospice movement as is the noble Lord, Lord Walker. I think that the noble Lord may be a patron of the North London Hospice, as I am and as is the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. I cannot remember: it is a long list. I agree with the noble Lord that public expenditure is of enormous importance. It is difficult for the hospice movement because so much of it is labour-intensive. Clearly, it is as important for the hospice movement as it is for home care for the elderly and the disabled.
	I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Walker, will have noticed that in the spending review Statement reference was made to the £125 million extra which is to be made available to the voluntary and charitable sector for the public services it performs. I can assure him that hospices come under the definition of public services performed by the voluntary and charitable sector.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps I may say how unequivocally pleased we are that extra money is going to education. That is long overdue and the extra £15 billion is vital if we are to maintain our competitiveness worldwide. How much of that money will go directly to schools and how much will go through local education authorities?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Chancellor gave the detailed figures for how much will go to each school. I suppose that I could add them all up and multiply by 3,500 secondary schools to give the noble Baroness a figure, but that would be unfair. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills will make a Statement tomorrow and it is better if that comes authoritatively from her rather than from me.

Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I welcome the Statement. It was a broad Statement which by any objective assessment could have been made only by a Chancellor who was successful in his position, as the present Chancellor surely is and has been in running the economy since 1997.
	My noble friend said that schools and hospitals come first, as they surely must. I certainly welcome that, but I also welcome the fact that the third leg of the stool, as it were, in the Statement was housing. Without decent housing, the first two services are difficult to deliver for children. As chairman of the Housing Corporation, I welcome the confidence that the Statement gives us about delivery in the difficult circumstances of increased housing needs and deprivation. I look forward to the Statement promised on Thursday by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister on planning and the whole area of housing.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords—

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is my turn, I think. I am of course grateful to my noble friend, who has been a distinguished chairman of the Housing Corporation for several years. With his characteristic modesty, my right honourable friend the Chancellor did not spell out what the increased housing expenditure will actually mean. I understand that it will mean virtually a doubling of the Housing Corporation's budget by 2005–06, which is an extraordinary change in the level of support for public housing.
	I am sure that my noble friend and the corporation will use that money wisely to deal with the long overdue problems of repair to existing housing and to secure affordable housing for people, especially in the South East of the country, for whom it is short. The lack of such housing is affecting our productivity. That is now up to the Housing Corporation.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am an innocent in these matters and I listened to the Statement with wonderment. I wondered whether the heading at its top was not, "All this and heaven too". It seems important to an ordinary person such as me to know what the Government will have borrowed by 2006.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness does herself an injustice, but the answer is that borrowing will still be in within the limits that we have always set. We have always said that there will be no net borrowing for revenue purposes over the course of the economic cycle. At the same time, we have said that borrowing for investment—in other words, for capital—which is now properly distinguished from revenue under the resource accounting being introduced this year, will be increased. I hope that the noble Baroness agrees that that is necessary.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, did the Minister detect the Chancellor's characteristic modesty when he did not allow himself to spell out whether the extra money that he will provide for policing takes account of the deepening crisis in police pensions?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, once again, the extra money being provided for policing will be much better dealt with in detail in the Home Secretary's Statement on Wednesday, but it provides for an increase in live policing, so to speak, rather than pensions funding, up to 130,000 police. Clearly, the proportion of money going to policing that goes on police pensions is a matter of continuing concern.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, first, I apologise to my noble friend because I have been upstairs in a Select Committee and was unable to be present earlier. Given that, as I understand it, there is to be major reform along with the welcome increase in expenditure, does that reform include the abolition of the Barnett formula?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, there is no suggestion of the abolition of the Barnett formula. If there were to be such a change, it would not take place in the context of a spending review.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, can the Minister tell us a little more about the inspection arrangements, which I believe are to be introduced in health and education to ensure that the Government's targets are met? Will those inspectorates be statutory bodies or will they be related to the auditing services?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope for the sake of all of us in the House that most of the things to be done will not involve primary legislation. We are sometimes too ready to embark on new primary legislation instead of making better use of the tools that we have. No, the real thrust will be in improved use of existing audit and accountancy bodies—the National Audit Office, which, of course, is not under government control, the Audit Commission and so on.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I declare an interest as the deputy chairman of the council of the University of London. This country has historically had world-class Armed Forces, financial services and universities, but the world-class position of the universities has been under greater threat than has been the case for the other two services. Can the Minister be more expansive and specific than the Statement allowed him to be about what the Government will do about the universities during the next three years?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, not really. That matter will become more apparent in the Statement to be made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. The Chancellor allowed himself—and I do not blame him, because it is a matter of enormous importance—to be a little more expansive about resources for science, research and the budgets of the research councils. Of course, that forms a significant part of expenditure on higher education. My right honourable friend went into some detail about that in the Statement, but for the sort of more detailed analysis for which the noble Lord asks, it is better to await the Statement from the relevant Secretary of State.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill

House again in Committee.
	Clause 44 [Conditions of support]:
	[Amendment No. 142A not moved.]
	Clause 44 agreed to.
	Clause 45 [Choice of form of support]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 45 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Greaves: I rise to oppose the Question that Clause 45 stand part of the Bill. The clause is headed "Choice of form of support". It should be headed, "No choice of form of support, except for the Home Secretary and his departmental organisations". Although it refers to about five different forms of support, the clause is really about the choice between NASS accommodation in what is now the traditional dispersed form and accommodation centres. There are echoes of the question of whether cash-only support should be abolished. We discussed that issue on the previous clause, and the cash-only option stands as a matter of difference between parts of the Committee. No doubt we shall return to it.
	The clause is about whether someone who comes to this country and applies for asylum should be sent to dispersed NASS accommodation; a block of flats in Glasgow; a terraced house in Leeds or whatever, or whether he should go to a new accommodation centre. The difference between us is that the Government are proposing not only that the asylum seeker will not make the decision and will not have a free choice in the matter—which is reasonable—but also that the asylum seeker's circumstances and wishes are not to be taken into account.
	Of course, that is already the case with some people who are sent straight to Oakington, but they are special cases that the Government believe to have no merit whatever—although they are not always right—and that can be dealt with quickly. However, we are talking here not about people who are locked in a detention centre while their cases are dealt with quickly, but about people who may be here for two to six months—or perhaps longer—even under the new super efficient system that we are promised, before their initial decision is reached.
	The assumption behind what the Government are saying is that no one applying for asylum in this country will ever want to live in one of the new trial accommodation centres. In another place on 14th May the Minister—who was Angela Eagle before the Home Office had one of its frequent throwing-balls-in-the-air-and-seeing-who-comes-down—said:
	"The Committee will agree that it would be nonsense for accommodation centres to run at half capacity because people have chosen dispersal".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee E, 14/5/02; col. 220.]
	I would not disagree. If accommodation centres are to be provided, it is sensible that they should be run as close to capacity as possible. No one disagrees.
	The disagreement is over the suggestion that the new accommodation centres, with what we are promised will be excellent facilities on site, able to deal and cope with the needs of asylum seekers in a secure and safe environment, will be unpopular with those seeking asylum. I do not believe that they will. Some of those coming from the other side of the world to a country about which they know nothing, having never heard of Birmingham, Glasgow, Leeds, or even Nelson, given the choice of a safe, secure environment with facilities on site, will say, "We'd prefer that to being sent somewhere we have never heard of. We don't know who else is going to be there; we don't know where it is; it is more of the unknown".
	As noble Lords have said, many people who come have suffered a great deal of trauma. The fact that a high proportion of asylum seekers are now young men leads people to believe that they do not necessarily suffer the same traumas as older people and families with children. My experience is that that is not the case. They are often frightened of the future: they do not know what is going to happen. They are often worried sick about the rest of their family and relatives, perhaps even wives and children back home. Some are suffering from mental illnesses and most have had great shocks to their system. The process of arriving here is extremely traumatic for many of them.
	Under those circumstances, I believe that at least some of them would prefer the safety and security of accommodation centres. We have discussed accommodation centres at great length. Some of us do not share the utter aversion to them that exists in other quarters. Given the Government's propensity to turn a good idea into a mess, I am not sure that we will hold that view once the accommodation centres have been operating for a while. We will have to see. We will assess them in a fair and honest way. But we do not oppose the principle of accommodation centres. We support their proposed trials, but not necessarily all the details.
	However, other people will be coming in for whom dispersal is the most sensible option because they have family, friends or community in this country. Therefore, where subsection (3)(a) suggests that the Secretary of State may,
	"have regard to administrative or other matters which do not concern the person's personal circumstances",
	the wording rings alarm bells. The absence from subsection (3) of any reference to the asylum seeker's personal circumstances being one of the issues taken into account is worrying.
	In another place, the same Minister said that not to include this clause would cause "administrative havoc". That is surely putting the point too strongly. By choosing the best option for individual asylum seekers one may avoid administrative problems and create a situation in which people will be the least unhappy with their circumstances. That must be conducive to quick and sensible decision making.
	The whole clause is misconceived in the way it is set out. We are not suggesting that asylum seekers should have an absolute right to choose, but they should be told what the options are and have the opportunity to put forward a preference that can be taken into account when the decision is made. The decision may not be the one they want, but their circumstances and preferences should be taken into account. The clause as it stands seems to preclude that.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I want to spell out what we understand Clause 45 to mean in the circumstances raised by the noble Lord. I want to place clear lines on the public record so that there can be no misunderstanding in future.
	Clause 45 deals with the choice of forms of support offered to destitute asylum seekers. It gives effect to our policy that support is provided on a no-choice basis. We have been clear about that from the outset. The Secretary of State will make the decision about where to provide support.
	Given some of the concerns expressed in another place and referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, it may be helpful if I emphasise that Clause 45(3) is not intended to list in order of priority the issues to which the Secretary of State should have regard when determining which provision to offer support under. It is intended to make it clear that the Secretary of State may lawfully have regard to several matters that are unrelated to personal circumstances for administrative reasons, such as running an effective asylum support system or for the purposes of the trial. That does not absolve the Secretary of State from his obligation to act reasonably in the circumstances. We have every intention of taking account of personal circumstances.
	It may help the Committee if I try to provide some idea of how we envisage using Clause 45(3). We will allocate places in accommodation centres to people according to their personal circumstances, the language that they speak and the size of their family group. However, during the trial period, we will have only a limited number of places, and we are likely to need to take into account additional factors that are unrelated to personal circumstances. That is why we have included the express power to allow us to take non-personal circumstances into account and to regard such matters as conclusive.
	The White Paper said that we might want to limit the allocation of accommodation centre places to those arriving at particular ports of entry or induction centres. That may assist in the early days of the trial, as capacity is built up, and may also foster links between, on the one hand, ports and induction centres and, on the other, particular accommodation centres. That would ease the process for all concerned. Clearly, the port of arrival is not linked to someone's personal circumstances, which is why we need subsection (3)(b). If we say that speakers of a particular language can be accommodated at the centres, one way of deciding which people should go to an accommodation centre would be to link the decision to the port of entry.
	I need hardly remind the Committee that, at the outset, we will have only 3,000 places at accommodation centres. It may be that we allocate person A to an accommodation centre and person B, who came through a different port but whose case is similar in other respects, to dispersal accommodation. Under Clause 45(3), that would be entirely right and proper. There might be nothing in the personal circumstances of those two people to distinguish them from each other, but paragraph (b) allows us to treat the port of entry as a conclusive factor in determining whether someone goes to a centre or to dispersal accommodation.
	Subsection (3)(c) allows us to,
	"apply different criteria to different persons for administrative reasons".
	It assists us to trial the new system by permitting us to allocate one person support in an accommodation centre and another person with the same or similar needs support in dispersal accommodation.
	Inevitably, some asylum seekers will express a preference as to whether they wish to be supported in an accommodation centre because that would suit their needs exactly or in dispersed accommodation. They may express a preference to live in a particular part of the country. As the Minister in another place said, it is the case that personal preference would be taken into account, although it might not be the primary consideration.
	I shall make the position clear. We will, of course, listen to any comments made, but asylum seekers will not be able to decide the method of support that will be used or the location in which they will be supported. We could not run an efficient system on that basis. However, a preference may be based on someone's personal circumstances. For example, a person might say that he wished to be supported where he could attend hospital regularly, as part of continuing treatment. It would be right for us to take that into account when deciding where to offer support—an accommodation centre or in a dispersal area.
	I shall make the distinction clear: personal circumstances will be taken into account, in so far as they have an impact on support-related issues, but pure personal preference as to the type of support will not be taken into account. We will, of course, be sensitive to the needs of individuals, but we must retain the flexibility to allocate in such a way as to make the system efficient and to ensure that we make the best use of it. That is the intention of the clause. It is best left as it is and best left in the Bill to do that job.

Earl Russell: The Minister has explained carefully and clearly that, although their preferences may be taken into account, asylum seekers will not be allowed to make a personal choice about where they live. Can the Minister explain why it is right to do that for asylum seekers but not for British subjects?

Lord Hylton: I am grateful to the Minister for the explanation of the clause. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that it is a pity that there is no reference in the clause to personal circumstances. Will the Government reflect on whether they might be able to incorporate such a reference by a future amendment? Will the Minister write to me to tell me whether there is any good precedent in legislation elsewhere for subsection (3)(c), which refers to the application of different criteria for different persons?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has made an interesting point, but I am not sure how he envisages that the system would work, were we to go along with his general drift. I will read carefully what the noble Lord said and consider the point that he is trying to make, but I cannot undertake to satisfy him on that point. I will, of course, write to the noble Lord.
	The answer to the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is that we seek to make it crystal clear that our policy for support for asylum seekers will operate on a no-choice basis. I must also make it clear that refugees have the same rights, once granted status, as those who are settled here. In operating an asylum system—whether it be for asylum seekers who end up in accommodation centres or dispersal areas—we must, in the circumstances, be the judge of how to make the best use of a generous but finite resource. The Bill will allow for that, and that is right. It would be a negligent government that did not seek to make good and efficient use of the resources at their disposal.

Lord Greaves: I thank the Minister for a useful, helpful and clear statement of the extent to which personal circumstances will be taken into account. It will be helpful to have that on the record. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in suggesting that the Government might consider putting a reference into the clause. In the light of what the Minister said, such a reference would probably make no difference to what will happen, but it would, at least, be in the Bill, and we would not have to rely on what the Minister said today.

Clause 45 agreed to.
	Clause 46 agreed to.
	Clause 47 [Asylum-seeker: appeal against refusal to support]:

Earl Russell: moved Amendment No. 143:
	Page 26, line 20, at end insert—
	"(9) The Secretary of State may make a grant to a voluntary organisation which provides—
	(a) advice or assistance to persons who have a right of appeal under this Part;
	(b) other services for the welfare of those persons.
	(10) A grant under subsection (9) may be subject to terms or conditions (which may include conditions as to repayment)."

Earl Russell: There is a good deal of work to be done in giving advice to asylum seekers. Many of them are badly in need of it, partly because of ignorance, partly because of the effects of trauma and partly because of the difficulty of coming to terms with things that have happened to them and which may cost a great effort of will to remember. I know one or two people who are in that position and who still have difficulty in allowing themselves to remember what happened to them three or more years after the event.
	All this could prove a severe burden on the facilities of an accommodation centre, which will be otherwise occupied. Granting the amendment might save the Government a good deal of trouble. In their own interests as well as those of asylum seekers, they would be well advised to do so. I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis: I support all that has been said by the noble Earl. It is very important to ensure that, where appropriate, the asylum seeker should be able to see his or her lawyer. The present regulations that obtain, contrary to assurances given elsewhere, make no proper provision for people to obtain reimbursement for their travel costs.
	It is equally important for witnesses to be able to go to a lawyer in order to make statements. No provision is made for that when it comes to an asylum seeker's appeal.

Earl Russell: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will forgive me. He is speaking in support of my next amendment, Amendment No. 143A. I shall warmly welcome his support for that amendment when we reach it.

Lord Renton: Would the noble Earl, Lord Russell, clarify a point for me? In the amendment he refers to "a voluntary organisation", which is a very wide expression. The amendment suggests that the Secretary of State should,
	"make a grant available to a voluntary organisation which provides . . . advice or assistance to persons who have a right of appeal".
	Obviously that means legal advice or assistance. Does the noble Earl include firms of solicitors under the expression "voluntary organisation"?

Earl Russell: The amendment is not concerned specifically with legal advice. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, will remember our debate on the first day in Committee when we discussed separately the provision of legal advice, to which he made a helpful contribution. This amendment refers more to questions involving the welfare of asylum seekers.
	I should have declared an interest in this matter since I am the patron of the Association of Visitors of Immigration Detainees. It is an extremely valuable body undertaking the same kind of visiting as that carried out in prisons, only one hopes in slightly better conditions. The association has done a great deal to mediate in matters of misunderstanding between asylum seekers and governors at the centres or, in some cases where they have been involved, the governors of prisons.
	I refer here also to organisations concerned with refugee health such as the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture and organisations of more general concern such as the Refugee Council. Above all, I refer to the Christian Churches whose contribution in this area I honour and respect deeply. A wide range of organisations is involved, quite apart from lawyers.
	One thing that has most impressed me and which has helped me to keep up my pride in my own country through a series of blows to it is the immensely high standard of those voluntary organisations that do involve themselves with refugees, providing them with a welcome, advice and support, but often simply listening to them, which sometimes is most important of all.
	I hope that I have clarified the point for the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I am very much concerned with legal advice, but I believe that we have already dealt with it. Furthermore, I do not think that I would have chosen to describe solicitors under the heading, "voluntary organisation". They might be involuntary, but let us not split hairs on the point.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the Minister replies—

Lord Judd: The noble Earl has raised an important point. Unless I am mistaken, I noticed that the Statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer repeated in this House this afternoon stated:
	"So that the vitality and independence of the charity, community and voluntary sector can grow and flourish, the Chief Secretary is today announcing details of a new three-year fund of £125 million that voluntary organisations can draw upon for their public service work".
	In replying to the noble Earl, can my noble friend on the Front Bench comment on the applicability of that fund to the kind of work to which the noble Earl referred?

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I had forgotten that our side had already had a shot.
	Can the Minister tell the Committee whether there is anything that would prevent the Secretary of State making a grant to a voluntary organisation without the need for new legislation? Can he also say whether there are any other examples of voluntary organisations being asked to return money they have not spent? I do not know the answer to that question at all.

Lord Dubs: I am slightly puzzled by the amendment. The noble Earl mentioned the Refugee Council. However, the council—for which I worked for some years until 1994—has been receiving money from the Home Office precisely for welfare and advice services. Unless something has changed recently, I should have thought that the amendment describes the present position.

Earl Russell: That is correct. The amendment describes the position as I hope it will remain.

Lord Dholakia: Perhaps I may make a brief point in relation to a number of organisations which have been advantageous to the Home Office in regard to their representations on behalf of those least able to make representations themselves.
	I do not know whether the Minister heard the Radio 4 programme broadcast yesterday on NASS. The organisation was described as one of the most bureaucratic government bodies in the country. I believe that even the former Minister at the Home Office, named as Angela Eagle on the programme, expressed her serious concerns in regard to the way that NASS was operating.
	However, what greatly concerns me is that many organisations are living from hand to mouth and are in desperate need of funds to provide advice and to make representations. It is in the Government's interest to ensure that funds are made available in order to make the work of such organisations that much easier.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall resist the temptation to respond to all the points that are somewhat adjacent to the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, except to pick up on the matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, on grant aid and new legislation. Much legislation on the statute book enables Secretaries of State across government departments to provide grant aid in different forms. I am sure that new legislation is not always required to open up yet another pot of funding. A great deal of flexibility is built into the workings of such schemes. Furthermore, I am sure that noble Lords will join my noble friend Lord Judd in welcoming the additional sums announced today by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It may well be that new and additional services are required as a result of this and other legislation in a similar field. Some of those voluntary organisations may wish to apply for assistance funding.
	I return to the main point of the amendment. We certainly understand the concerns expressed by the noble Earl. Putting it frankly, I am aware that asylum support adjudicators have called for legal advice to be made available. It is believed that they are particularly concerned with regard to cases involving the early termination of support.
	Generally speaking, the reason for early termination of support is based on fact. The asylum seeker will have left his accommodation or would have breached a condition on which such support was predicated. All asylum seekers are informed of the conditions on which support is offered. Additional briefing provided during the induction centre process reinforces that message. If asylum seekers choose to ignore this information, they must be prepared to shoulder responsibility and accept the consequences.
	It would be a nonsense for the Home Office to grant fund the provision of welfare services to asylum seekers who are appealing against a decision to terminate their support early because they failed to abide by the terms under which the support was offered. Had they abided by the terms, they would have continued to be supported. For those reasons, we cannot accept the amendment.
	It should be understood that the Government support a number of organisations which offer different and varied advice to asylum seekers and those seeking asylum in this country. We have been praised widely for doing so. However, a line has to be drawn. We believe that we are right in drawing that line in this case. I am unable to accept the noble Earl's amendment, although I understand the spirit in which it was moved.

Earl Russell: Is there any discretion at all in the enforcement of the rules of support? I understand the Minister's position. But let us suppose that a man's cousin and only surviving relative has had a heart attack, his life is in immediate danger and the asylum seeker ignores the curfew in order to go out to visit his cousin because it may be the last time that he will ever see any living relation. When you have seen most of your relations killed, your attachment to those that survive can become very intense because it is an attachment to the whole of your past and your sense of place. One would have thought that representations for mercy might be made in that kind of case. Is that question being considered? If not, there is a strong case for asking the Government to think very seriously about whether it should be considered in the future.
	I was told at Yale that all Yale rules should be construed to contain the word "normally". When the Minister enunciates rules of support, one wonders whether he may perhaps consider them to contain the word "normally". The kind of situation I have envisaged will not happen often but it is almost certain that it will happen at least once that an asylum seeker in accommodation will go off and try to visit the dying person—or possibly recovering person—while he has the chance to do so because he knows that he will never have the chance to do so again. I am not asking for a very big thing but it is an area where the action of an intermediary could be extremely important. While the matter is under urgent consideration, I hope that the Minister will at least say that he understands why I am making this request of him. I do not think that it is altogether unreasonable.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: When the noble Earl made his first comments on this issue my mind went back some 20 or so years to a time when I was a legal adviser in a law centre where there were a number of Chilean refugees. The noble Earl referred to the effect of trauma, torture and mistreatment on people. From talking to people who came here as refugees fleeing the Chilean regime and who have now lived in this country for 20 years and more, I know that they greatly welcomed the support and aid that they received. They still find it very hard to talk in detail about the trauma they experienced and the impact it had upon them.
	Where a person can provide a reasonable excuse for a breach of regulations—perhaps in the circumstances enunciated by the noble Earl—termination of support would not be thought right. In the circumstances described by the noble Earl, and taking into account some of the points he made about the impact that traumatic flight may have on people, there would be an element of flexibility. For that reason—this underpins the point I made earlier—the amendment is not necessary. It does not add anything to the way in which we expect the law to operate.

Earl Russell: For once in a blue moon I am relieved to be told that my amendment is not necessary. I thank the Minister warmly for what he said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Russell: moved Amendment No. 143A:
	Page 26, line 29, leave out "may" and insert "shall"

Earl Russell: The amendment concerns attendance at appeals. As it stands at present, the Bill states:
	"The Secretary of State may pay reasonable travelling expenses incurred by an appellant in connection with attendance for the purposes of an appeal".
	The amendment seeks to change the word "may" to "shall" and allows for the attendance of witnesses.
	In the case I have just described, it is perfectly possible that an intensive care nurse from the hospital may be asked to attend as a witness and incur considerable travelling expenses. Nurses pay is not so generous that they can afford large train fares at the drop of a hat. I hope the Minister will find the amendment worthy of consideration. I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis: I apologise for anticipating rather too early in the debate inspired by the noble Earl. I do not imagine that my noble friend will be able to make the concession in the terms asked for by the noble Earl. However, the amendment gives him an opportunity to state the policy that will be followed by the Secretary of State. I hope that asylum seekers and their witnesses will have the opportunity to see the lawyers of their choice. That being so, it may, in a minority of cases, mean help being given with expenses. I hope that my noble friend will be able to say something comforting in that regard.

Lord Renton: I shall be very surprised if the Minister can accept the first amendment in this group and I am doubtful about the other two. I wonder whether the noble Earl, Lord Russell, realises that the Secretary of State may at an early stage have information which enables him to realise that the person seeking asylum is bogus. In those circumstances, stating that the Secretary of State "shall" pay travel expenses and other matters would be utterly wrong. We must leave the discretion with the Secretary of State.

Lord Hylton: I do not have with me Section 103 of the 1999 Act but I strongly suspect that this refers, as does the remainder of the clause, to asylum support appeals only. If that is the case, an amendment of this kind should go much wider. That is why I moved and withdrew an amendment which was designed to be much wider. It referred not only to benefit support appeals but to other kinds of asylum and immigration appeals in the interests of getting the best possible quality of decisions, thereby avoiding subsequent appeals and cases for judicial review. Will the Government attempt to widen this principle to affect more of the Bill?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The intervention of my noble friend Lord Renton has made it possible for me to be succinct. I simply wanted to ask on what basis the Secretary of State would refuse to pay travelling expenses. My noble friend put the question in the proper context.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: It might be helpful if I were to spell out the circumstances surrounding the provision of and access to legal advice that we envisage. It is worth putting on the record that we are committed to providing access to legal advice at all stages of the asylum process. We have made that clear before. Advice will be provided in accommodation centres either by lawyers or advisers based on site or by co-ordinated local advice services. Advice will be provided by the Legal Services Commission which will let specific contracts for the purpose. In general, asylum seekers will not need to travel from an accommodation centre to receive legal advice. If they or others who are not in an accommodation centre need to do so, travel costs may be refunded by the existing legal aid system.
	We have also ensured that adequate powers are there to enable the funding and grant-aiding of legal support and advice. Section 111 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 currently enables the Secretary of State to make grants to voluntary organisations, as is well known. Clause 97 of the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to grant-fund voluntary organisations that provide advice and assistance. Broad-ranging provision has been made and more than adequate powers have been put in place to ensure that that will continue. We are committed to that.
	I shall discuss the amendments in reverse order. The case against Amendment No. 145 is clear. As we do not believe that legal representation at an appeal is necessary, it would be nonsense for the Home Office to pay the travel expenses of an asylum seeker seeking legal advice in connection with an appeal against the withdrawal of support.

Earl Russell: Will the Minister say why he thinks that legal representation in an appeal is not necessary?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am talking about the specific circumstances relating to withdrawal of support. I am happy to tell the Committee why Amendment No. 144 is unnecessary. Section 96(1)(c) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 may allow us to meet the expenses of witnesses who attend an asylum appeal in respect of a supported asylum seeker. Section 103(9) of the same Act, which is reproduced in the new Section 103B inserted by Clause 41 of the Bill, may allow the expenses of a witness attending an asylum support hearing to be paid, and Section 96(2) allows for forms of support other than those specified by Section 96(1) to be provided in exceptional circumstances.
	Amendment No. 144 is an attempt to require travel expenses of witnesses to be paid in every case. Current legislation is permissive, but it is normal policy to meet the travel expenses of witnesses, so I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that making payment mandatory is not necessary. There may be circumstances in which it would be ridiculous to pay travelling expenses—for example when a witness is more than able to afford the costs of travel. NASS currently operates under instructions to that effect.
	Amendment No. 143A would affect the current legislation that the Secretary of State may pay any reasonable travelling expenses to enable an appellant to attend an appeal hearing in connection with a decision to refuse or terminate support. I am happy to reassure the Committee that, as a general rule, reasonable travel expenses of appellants will be met from public funds. But again it would be nonsensical to insist on that in every case. Support may be terminated early because the person has failed to abide by the terms in which that support was offered. The person may have been working without telling the authorities and claiming support at the same time. We have to be able to take account of those circumstances. People have undoubtedly defrauded the public purse and many will be well able to meet the costs of their own travel.
	We must ensure that public money used for supporting asylum seekers is spent to best effect. Paying travel expenses in every case, even for those who can afford the costs of their own travel, would not represent best value for money. It would be entirely inappropriate to meet the costs of travel in such cases. For that reason the amendment should be withdrawn as the points that it covers have already been met by and large.

Lord Hylton: The Minister cited Clause 97 of the Bill which does indeed deal with grants. However, they are limited to persons who have a right of appeal. Therefore, the clause does not go wide enough to cover legal advice before a first decision has been made. Will the Minister consider having a dialogue with the Legal Services Commission so that legal advice will be readily available to those who need it at the earliest possible stage? That would lead to much better quality first decisions.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am happy to consider that point. The noble Lord is right about what Clause 96 covers. The Secretary of State can make grants to voluntary organisations that provide advice or assistance to people with a right of appeal under Part 5 of the Bill. The circumstances to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred are limited to that element of the legislation. I shall consider that point, but we are probably right in constraining the area which it covers.

Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for his reply. He has convinced me that he may do what I ask, and I very much hope that he will. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 144 and 145 not moved.]
	Clause 47 agreed to.
	Clause 48 [Withholding and withdrawal of support]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 48 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Greaves: This is an extremely important clause, although it is short. It refers to Schedule 3 which is a long, complex and important schedule setting out entirely new legislation for the withholding and withdrawal of support. It refers to four categories of people: failed asylum seekers; people living here illegally; European Union and EEA citizens; and those who have been granted refugee status in another EU state.
	These new proposals were introduced at the last minute in another place. They received what can only be described as a cursory discussion on Report, together with a large number of other amendments. They certainly did not receive proper scrutiny. If they are to receive proper scrutiny, this is the only time and place that it will happen. Therefore, I hope that Members of the Committee will bear with me.
	The Government's reason for bringing forward the amendment was clearly to deal with what is commonly called "benefit shopping". People in various categories, particularly refugees and former refugees who have gained citizenship in another part of Europe, come to this country and are not economically active; not having lived here for any length of time, they are unable to claim habitual residence. Because they are not able to claim national benefits, they fall back on claiming what might be termed local benefits: essentially benefits from social services departments as set out in paragraph 1 of the schedule. So there is clearly a problem in some places. It was reported to me that in Birmingham, for example, this has cost the social services department £3 million—a not inconsiderable sum. It is a problem that must be examined and sorted out.
	The difficulty is this. By bringing forward this legislation at the last minute in the other place, in what seems to be a fairly rushed and not very considered way, the Government are not merely tackling the problem of a relatively small number of people—for some reason most appear to be Somalis, but the provision no doubt applies to others—they are introducing legislation which appears to have a far more wide-ranging effect and which applies to all citizens of the EU and the EEA.
	I do not understand European law in this area, or indeed in any other area, and I doubt whether many other people do. It is extremely complex. The amendment itself is a complex attempt to amend an extremely complex area of law on a one-off basis, in a Bill which otherwise has nothing to do with European legislation and rules, and which may well extend into areas beyond the competence—I use the word in a colloquial way—of those who are dealing with these matters.
	It is suggested by some that this proposed piece of legislation may well break European rules—that it may be contrary to European law. I do not know whether that is the case, but there are enough people who appear to know what they are talking about who are putting that forward to cause concern.
	It seems to us that any solution to the problem requires a European-wide agreement. Not to seek such agreement risks breaking a fundamental principle of equality of treatment for all EEA citizens. EEA citizens who come to this country and are able to work are all right. If they live here long enough, they may well meet the habitual residence test if in the future they are in need of assistance, for example, in regard to a disability or whatever it may be. But those who are not able to work here are being potentially discriminated against.
	The proposal is to remove a raft of possible benefits from four different categories. It seems to me that no one can argue against the removal of benefits from failed asylum seekers. If their claim had failed, they are not entitled to support beyond that which may be necessary on humanitarian grounds and perhaps to look after any children.
	However, the proposal gives rise to various concerns. There are at present an unknown number of people in this country who are in receipt of welfare support, housing support, and social services support of other kinds from local authorities. I do not know whether the Minister can give the government estimate of the numbers involved. I have not seen the figure, but it is clearly a reasonably large minority in a few places, and not many in the rest of the country.
	These are potentially families who rely on the benefits that they receive. It may involve older people and children. One of the concerns is: what happens to these people? If the legislation is passed, will their benefit simply be cut off; and what would the consequences be? If the Government intend in the future to provide support only for children, does that mean that those children will be taken into care and that families will be split up? What are the alternatives?
	A further concern is that this provision could prevent families being reunited if there are family members with refugee status in different countries. If a husband has refugee status in France, for example, and the wife and children have refugee status here, on the face of it this schedule would prevent the husband coming to this country and being reunited with his children. Is that sensible? Should not this issue be dealt with at European level, so that refugee status can be transferred by agreement from one country to another?
	Paragraph 14 of the schedule places on local authorities a duty to provide information if they come across people whom they believe to be failed asylum seekers or who are otherwise not entitled to be living here—who are settled here unlawfully. It places on the local authority a duty to notify the central authorities of that fact.
	The wording of paragraph 14 is rather strange and the provision is unclear. It does not state quite so boldly that there is a general duty on local authorities. It suggests that the duty is in relation to their other duties as regards people's eligibility for social services support. The question arises: is this to be regarded in future as a general duty on local authorities? If they come across someone who is not entitled to be living here, is it their duty in all cases to notify the Government, or only where an application is being made for support and the applicants are found to be ineligible under the terms of the schedule?
	If it is a general duty, it will place many local authorities in great difficulty. Anyone involved with refugees and asylum seekers hears many stories. Sometimes you deliberately close your ears to them. You get to know that such and such a person has failed in his or her asylum claim after going through all the appeal processes, and is said to be living in such and such a place with such and such a person. You close your eyes to that. If you are working with asylum and refugee groups and you go around "shopping" people, you immediately lose credibility. You cannot do that. That is the case with some local authority employees who are employed specifically to work with such groups. If it is to be their duty to "shop" people whenever they come across rumours or even strong evidence that people are living in this country when they should not be, it will make their job impossible. It will cut local authorities off from the very useful contacts that they have with local asylum and refugee groups. The point needs clarification.
	Amendment No. 158A in this group refers to paragraph 15 of Schedule 3, which allows the Secretary of State to invent a new class of person for this purpose. As I understand it, this is over and above the four existing classes—failed asylum seekers, EEA citizens and so on. A new class of person can be invented and can simply be added to the list by order. This seems an extraordinary provision—the ability to remove people's rights and to create new "non-persons" simply by order. I wonder whether the Minister can justify this provision.
	Will the Minister define a failed asylum seeker? Is it someone who has been turned down at the first stage; or has someone to go through the whole process before the provisions can be brought in? Will the Minister tell us what reliance on a right under or by virtue of Community treaties means? I do not understand it. I can find no one who can explain it to me in words of one syllable. Perhaps the Minister can do so. Such a provision could drive a coach and horses through the schedule; or it may clarify it.
	How many people are getting this support from local authorities at present? By what process will they lose support? In other words, what transitional period will there be for people in that position at present or will they simply be thrown out on the street without further ado? What is the relationship of the habitual residence test to the proposed new legislation? It was discussed, although not clarified, in another place.
	It is an extremely important schedule which deserves considerable discussion and understanding before the Committee allows it to go through.

Lord Renton: Schedule 3 is four-and-a-half pages long. It is rather complicated and its legal effect is, in several places, somewhat obscure. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—he has taken a lot of trouble in putting forward his views on the schedule—that we can do without it.
	Perhaps I may run quickly through some of the provisions. Paragraph 1 relates to ineligibility for support. That merely ensures that existing law of various kinds must not be ignored. We could not do without that. I have slight doubts about the exceptions which are put forward but they do not go too far and I think that that provision is all right.
	The four classes of ineligible persons are set out in paragraphs 4 to 7. I think that those are wise provisions which we must have. Paragraph 8 provides that,
	"The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for arrangements to be made enabling a person to whom paragraph 1 applies . . . to leave the United Kingdom".
	That is necessary and fair. I agree with the power given to the Secretary of State under paragraph 10 to make regulations providing for accommodation. That is fair enough. The same applies to paragraph 11; that is fair enough.
	The offences follow naturally if there are breaches. It is only right that the schedule should be supported by the power to prosecute if necessary although, frankly, the circumstances in which prosecutions are likely to take place would, I think, turn out to be rather narrow. Paragraph 14 relates to information and is fair enough.
	I now invite the Committee's attention to paragraph 15 which relates to power to amend the schedule. That is what we call a Henry VIII clause giving the Secretary of State power to amend primary legislation made by Parliament. We should try to avoid that wherever possible. Bearing in mind the trouble which has been taken with regard to the other parts of Schedule 3, I doubt whether that Henry VIII clause is necessary or desirable. Paragraph 16 relates to the making of regulations. We then have a paragraph relating to interpretation which is clear enough.
	Although I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and his noble friends that Schedule 3 should be struck from the Bill, the Government should consider the making of the Henry VIII clause. I support the Government on the remainder of the schedule.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, probably rightly says that the House of Commons did not look hard at the schedule; it came in at the last moment. I accept that. He asked what a failed asylum seeker is. I should have thought we knew that by now: an asylum seeker who has failed the test and failed on appeal. I may be wrong, but the noble Lord asked the question and that seemed to be the answer. The Government will or will not confirm my opinion.
	The noble Lord also asked what happens if someone has to leave. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the schedule provide that the Secretary of State may make regulations to enable that person to leave. That is clearly important. Although we want asylum seekers who deserve to stay to do so, we want the whole matter dealt with quickly. We do not want people staying after they have been refused, so the Secretary of State may by regulations provide for them to go. If a person has a dependent child, under paragraph 9 he can obtain accommodation before that arrangement is made.
	I considered the schedule and the Explanatory Notes with some care. I thought that I understood the schedule and that it was fairly satisfactory. I listened carefully to the noble Lord. He may have unearthed something that will worry me although I am not sure that he did. I do not know whether it is my job to encourage the Government in this way, but on those questions I had thought that I understood the schedule.
	I am not sure whether the measure to which my noble friend Lord Renton objects is a Henry VIII clause. It enables the Secretary of State to alter the list of people to whom the provision applies and the list of legislation that does not apply. I thought that that was a safety net. Again, I should like to hear what the Government have to say.

Lord Dholakia: I support the concern expressed by my noble friend Lord Greaves, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Apart from the serious implication about the Henry VIII clause in relation to power to amend the schedule, what new powers will define the type of person to be included? Will such regulations be brought before the House by statutory instrument? That will give the opportunity for both Houses of Parliament to consider them. Alternatively, is it simply within the power of the Home Secretary to determine the category of people who fall within Schedule 3, as he does with the "white list", and so on?

Lord Kingsland: As I understand it, Clause 48 and Schedule 3 remove all powers for local authorities to provide support or assistance to four categories of ineligible person. Schedule 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 allows a very wide discretion for local authorities to act as they see fit to promote well-being in their particular areas.
	I—and, I suspect, many other Members of the Committee—have received a substantial note from the Local Government Association strongly opposing this clause. The note seems to contain three central objections. First, the association objects, in principle, to what it sees as an unnecessary fettering of local authority powers under Section 2 of the Local Government Act. Secondly, it appears to believe that local authorities should retain the right, at their discretion, in relation to those categories of ineligible person, to provide support. Thirdly, the LGA strongly objects to a lack of consultation with local authorities before the provisions were included in the Bill.
	On that last point, I understand that the clause was introduced during the proceedings in another place and that, contrary to the traditions that are enshrined in the system of protocols which lay down the relationship between central and local government, no prior consultation was undertaken. That is what I glean from the LGA's note. I, like other Members of the Committee, am anxious to hear from the Minister; in particular, I look forward to his reaction to the point on consultation.

Lord Renton: I was most impressed by my noble friend's remarks. He raised a matter to which I had not attributed much importance. Clearly, paragraph 14 on page 87 is the provision that mainly concerns local authorities. Some of the minor provisions in that regard could also affect local authorities. Will the Minister explain what other provisions in the schedule, apart from paragraph 14, would worry local authorities?

Lord Filkin: This is my first time at the Dispatch Box this afternoon. With the leave of the Committee, I should like to make a short statement relating to our debates on Tuesday, 9th July. When I have done that, I shall turn to Clause 48.
	On Tuesday, 9th July at col. 602 I gave figures from memory concerning the success rate of asylum applicants. The figures that I gave related to initial decisions only; that was the issue in contention. I apologise for inadvertently misleading the Committee.
	For the record, I point out that for 2001, 9 per cent of applicants were granted asylum and 17 per cent were granted exceptional leave to remain at the initial decision stage. We will shortly be publishing an estimated figure for 2001, including the figures for appeals in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin on asylum statistics for 2001. That will contain the latest figures. We have, however, considered the applications made in 2000 under normal procedures and have examined the outcomes. At the initial decision stage, 11 per cent were recognised as refugees, 12 per cent were granted ELR and the remainder were refused. Of all those who were refused at the initial stage, we estimated that a further 8 per cent were successful after appeal to an adjudicator as either refugees or in being granted ELR; we do not currently have the split between the two. We also do not have comparable figures for those who are—or were—successful after appeal to the IAT or higher courts, but a very small proportion is involved. Our overall best estimate for 2000 is that 31 per cent of those who applied for asylum in that year were successful in being recognised as refugees or in being granted ELR. That figure of 31 per cent does not represent the number of those who were recognised as refugees; the two figures would be added together. I hope that before long we will be able to disaggregate the two figures, which will give us a better picture of the situation.
	I hope that that is helpful. I repeat the undertaking that I gave to place a short explanatory paper in the Library before the Bill's Report stage.
	I turn to Clause 48. The provision restricts the type of support that is available to those who have citizenship or refugee status in other EU/EEA states who are coming to the UK and claiming benefits. At the same time, it restricts support that is available to other categories of individuals; that is, failed asylum seekers who can leave the UK but do not co-operate with removal directions, and individuals who reside in the UK illegally but who have not applied for asylum. That has been introduced at least in part to help local authorities by providing legal clarity when dealing with applications for support from those categories of individuals.
	At the moment, different local authorities are adopting different approaches to claims for support from those individuals. Local authorities are being approached for social services support, normally under the National Assistance Act 1948 or, in the case of those with children, the Children Act 1989, as individuals fail the income-related benefits test.
	There certainly are increasing numbers of individuals arriving in the UK and seeking social services assistance in those respects. That is placing a considerable demand on local authorities' resources and causes considerable problems for some of them. We do not know—the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked about this—the precise numbers with which we are faced. That indicates the problem being faced by the statutory agencies that are trying to cope with that influx. I shall give examples later of areas in which we know that there is a problem. For example, anecdotal evidence suggests that in Leicester alone between 2,000 and 10,000 people of Somali origin have migrated over the past 18 months or so. Although Dutch nationals of Somali origin highlight the problem, there are also reports of growing communities from other areas, such as Portugal and Montserrat. We are therefore introducing these measures to help to ease the pressures that are being brought to bear on local authorities and at the same time to provide those individuals and their families with the means to return to their home country.
	Two recent cases in the courts have assisted in that area. The case of G v Barnet involved a Dutch national of Somali origin who asked for local authority accommodation to be provided for her to live with her child. Following a needs assessment, the local authority offered the means for them both to return home to Holland, where support was available to them, alongside an offer to take the child into care. The Court of Appeal held that that was a reasonable offer on the part of the local authority and that the authority was not obliged to house the family if they rejected the offer, although it would be obliged to accommodate the child, and was quite willing to do so.
	This year, the cases of Ali and Mohammed v Birmingham involved similar circumstances. Following the Barnet judgment, the council exercised its new policy and carried out needs assessments in each case, which resulted in its offering transport to the families to return to the Netherlands, where they had welfare rights, with an offer to accommodate the children if the travel were declined. In those cases, the offers were not accepted and the case went to judicial review. The court held that, once again, that approach was lawful.
	The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked for further evidence about whether there is a problem. I shall illustrate that briefly. Birmingham City Council brought to our attention the situation that it faced in 2000, when it received applications for support from more than 265 families. In July 2000, the council was supporting more than 200 families. As a consequence, in the financial year 2000-01, supporting those families cost £2.8 million in social services provision. In the following year, after it had tightened its policy, the cost to Birmingham City Council was £1.7 million. I recollect, as will other Members of the Committee, that Birmingham City Council approached the Department of Health towards the end of last year because of the extreme overspend on its social services budget in that year and was desperately seeking additional financial support. Clearly, those additional burdens cannot have helped it in any respect.
	We have also been told that, in the last 18 months to July 2002, some 1,100 Somali children have arrived in Leicester, to be educated in Leicester schools, mostly at primary level. We have also had representations from the city of Sheffield as to the extent of their exposure to this problem, and seeking Government support to rectify it.
	In some cases local authorities have essentially sought government support to put beyond doubt or risk the legal position, so that they are not constantly at the risk of challenge. In other cases, perhaps more like Leicester or Sheffield, they have asked whether central government would bail them out in relation to the costs to which they are exposed by exercising the discretion to pay out to families in this way. There is undoubtedly a problem, certainly in the local authorities I have mentioned—Barnet, Birmingham, Leicester and Sheffield—but there is anecdotal evidence that it goes wider than that, although the department has not undertaken a systematic trawl of it.
	I should also mention that Leicester's chief executive has indicated to officials in the department that, to cover the £3 million additional costs they have incurred through the exercise of their discretion in this matter, it would require a council tax increase of over 5 per cent in the current year 2002–03 if they have to fund it locally—as they will clearly have to.
	There is a problem, therefore, and it is quite a substantial and serious one for a number of local authorities. It is why, in part, the Government have responded to these representations and sought to clarify the position for the local authorities concerned.
	Turning back to some of the specifics of the schedule, for those who have citizenship or refugee status in another EU or EEA state short-term accommodation may be provided to families with children, as well as a one-way journey to their home country. If the family do not take up the offer of travel or fail to travel, all support will be cut off, other than an offer of support for the children under the Children Act 1989. For asylum seekers whose claim has been rejected and who could leave the UK but who fail to comply with the removal directions, all support will also come to an end. Local authorities will only be able to provide an offer of support to children under the Children Act 1989. Also, for those who are in the UK unlawfully and who apply to the local authority for support, including failed asylum seekers, the local authorities would be required to inform the Home Office so that removal can be arranged.
	The local authority may provide short-term accommodation to families with children until the date of removal. Should the family fail to travel, all support will be terminated other than an offer of support for the children under the Children Act 1989.

Lord Avebury: I wonder whether the Minister can help me? I have a case at the moment which has not come before the authorities, where a family was resident in France. The refugee status of the head of household was withdrawn and so he came to Great Britain and is now living here. Would he have support withdrawn, when there is evidence from the French authorities that they no longer recognise him as a refugee in their country?

Lord Filkin: Given my recent experiences, I am slightly hesitant to give off-the-cuff judgments on the law on eligibility. I will consider that, however, and if by the time I come to the end of my wind-up speech I am able to give a better answer, I will do so. Otherwise, I will write to the noble Lord.
	We will ensure that children and other vulnerable persons continue to receive appropriate care, while at the same time enabling families to stay together by accepting the offer of a journey home. In particular, those with special care needs will continue to have them met until the date of travel. If they do not travel and they have not provided an acceptable excuse—for example, that they were too ill to travel, with a supporting medical certificate—then care will be reduced to the minimum level in order to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights.
	We will also need to guard against those who may seek to abuse the support and facilities offered to them. Local authority resources need to be preserved for those who are in genuine need. For example, I well recollect Birmingham City Council pointing out the serious knock-on effect of their exposure to costs in this respect on caring for the elderly and children in need in their area. For that reason we are introducing two new offences as part of this measure. First, it will be an offence for a person to accept the offer of short-term accommodation and/or a journey home and then to return to the UK and claim these benefits again. The Committee will see why.
	Secondly, to help ensure that local authorities have the best information before them when considering a request for support under these provisions, it will be an offence for a person to fail to mention any previous request for support under these measures.
	As has been mentioned, we are also placing an obligation upon local authorities to report to the Secretary of State if the prohibition on granting types of support listed in this amendment apply to failed asylum seekers or to persons unlawfully in the UK in the authority's area. This will facilitate the Home Office instigating removal action against appropriate individuals.

Lord Dholakia: I apologise for disturbing the flow of the Minister's speech, but what sanctions are available to the Government if the local authority do not co-operate in terms of informing either the failed asylum seekers, or for that matter a person illegally settled in this country?

Lord Filkin: Let me add that to the list of issues to which I will seek to respond when I conclude. I will touch more specifically on the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, about the duty to report to the Home Office.
	If a local authority has reasonable suspicion that a person is here unlawfully or a failed asylum seeker is in their area, they will be required to report it to IND, and I think that that is right. If people have no right of residence here, local authorities, as responsible public bodies, should co-operate with central government on their removal.
	The exact nature of this provision and how it will operate will be laid out in regulations, drawn up in full consultation with the LGA. I will return to the LGA later.
	Officials in the department, in consultation with colleagues from other government departments, will provide practical guidance and assistance to local authorities to assist them in undertaking this duty. Again, that guidance will be the subject of very full consultation and discussion with the LGA and any particular local authorities that wish to become actively involved in it.
	The question was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, of the definition of a failed asylum seeker. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, gave the correct answer. A failed asylum seeker is somebody who has been through the appeal process, not someone with a first refusal. It is somebody who has either appealed and the appeal has been heard, or who has not chosen to exercise their appeal and is time-expired.
	The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, also asked if this could breach legal Community treaties. That is not so. Paragraph 3(b) of the schedule provides that a person's Community rights cannot be affected. Community law rights will take primacy. Any right to support under Community law will be respected.
	The noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Dholakia, asked about paragraph 15 applying by order to a new class of person, which touches the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, as to whether paragraph 15 was a Henry VIII clause.

Lord Renton: I must apologise. When I said that paragraph 15 was a Henry VIII clause I had overlooked the fact that in paragraph 16 any order that the Secretary of State makes must be made by statutory instrument, so Parliament will have the opportunity.

Lord Filkin: As ever, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has pre-empted me. It will be subject to affirmative resolution and it is intended to give maximum flexibility in the future application of this provision. That is therefore why it will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It is in recognition of the likely complexities of the provision which operates in practice. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has signalled, it is an extremely complicated area of law and it may well be that there is a need to look at how it is fine-tuned in the future—but by affirmative resolution.
	The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked about the relationship to habitual residence tests. If, for example, a local authority chose to support a family for six months under the National Assistance Act provisions, at the end of that time they would have met the habitual residence period and the burden for welfare support would fall to national government. While we recognise that, in an ideal world, we would not wish to fetter a local authority's discretion, we firmly believe that it is right to do so because the consequences bear on health authorities and central government.
	The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, raised some significant questions about the unnecessary fettering of local authority discretion. That was the first question raised by the LGA. I have made it clear that a number of local authorities considered that the Government needed to act on this. The largest local authority in the land and a number of others with considerable experience have said that this needs to be addressed as a serious issue. We have sought to respond to that.
	Our concern is that if we just extinguished the right under the National Assistance Act and the Children Act, a local authority that was keen on pursuing such a policy might be able to say that Section 2 of the Local Government Act gave it the power. Therefore, with reluctance, we have had to make it explicit that that is not an option; otherwise we would not have closed the loophole. We think that it is necessary to put the issue beyond doubt and to limit the discretion of local authorities in this way.
	On the LGA's third point, the best I can say is that I do not think that we are particularly proud of the attempts that have been made at consultation on the principle of this so far. I hope that noble Lords will not press me further than that. There have been busy telephone conversations recently and discussions with the chairman of the LGA, who recognises that it is important that discussions between officials continue on the principle as well on as the implementation detail.
	There are already dates for meetings to discuss the implementation detail, but despite there having been an attempt—albeit a rather weak one—to have consultation about the principle, it is fair and true to say that the LGA has not been invited to a discussion about the principle. We are not eager to have our minds easily changed on the subject, but it is part of the proper process that the LGA should be given an opportunity to do so and that we should consider its representations. I told officials last Thursday or Friday that if the LGA can show that it is not necessary to act against the Local Government Act in the way we suggest, our minds will be open to consider the argument, but I find it difficult to see how the LGA's power runs to give an assurance that a local authority might not use that if we did not extinguish it.
	I hope that that mea culpa, in a sense, signals that we are intent on engaging the LGA in the implementation detail and on the principle, even at this stage of the process.

Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his frank description of what happened with respect to consultation. The obvious concern, not just from these Benches, but from around your Lordships' House, is: what price constitutional devolution, which depends so much on the concordat and protocol system? Because the Minister has been so frank, I am not accusing him of being engaged in something wrongful. I am simply hoping that, in future, greater respect will be paid to the concordat system. It is fundamental to the Government's constitutional philosophy, as I understand it, that decisions should be taken at the lowest level possible and that the process should be controlled not by law, but by a system of conventional agreements between local authorities and central government. I hope that the breach on this occasion will prove a rare one.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: On the same point, I notice that most of the Acts that local government will not be able to operate under if the provision becomes law relate to functions that are devolved to the Scots Parliament. Has the Scots Parliament agreed? Was it not consulted as well as local authorities? It astonishes me that the Government could go far on this without consulting local government. I had not heard from the local authorities, which is why I did not mention those points; but now that the situation has become clear to me, I am surprised. What about the Scots Parliament?

Lord Filkin: There is not much else that I should add to what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, apart from recognising that the Government value their relationship with local government. We believe in subsidiarity as far as is reasonably practicable in terms of national objectives. Anything that fundamentally might be seen to affect the powers and responsibilities of local government should be discussed and consulted on at the earliest appropriate stage. I do not wish to dig my hole any deeper at this point.
	I am pleased to report that officials visited Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast to discuss these issues, recognising, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said, that, while immigration is a national matter, the application of this clearly affects the role of local government in those areas. I am informed that they have been appropriately consulted.
	There are a few remaining points to which I have not responded. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked a very challenging question about whether the schedule applies to a French family that does not have a record of refugee status in France. It does not, although we cannot comment on particular cases. Paragraph 4 will apply only to persons with refugee status in another EU state, such as France. On these facts, we do not believe that the paragraph would apply, because the person concerned does not have refugee status in France.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked what sanctions were available. Guidance will be statutory under paragraph 14 and local authorities must follow it. If they do not, they are in breach of their statutory obligation to follow the guidance. It is clearly a fundamental obligation on them.
	I do not want to detain the Committee further. Officials will provide practical guidance and assistance to local authorities on the implementation. We are satisfied that the measures comply with ECHR requirements and other international obligations. Those with refugee status in an EU state or nationals of such a state have entitlement to support elsewhere, so claiming support here is not an acceptable use of public money and presents a considerable burden on local authorities and their social services budgets, as well as on the national state. We have to make it clear that local authorities will not be empowered to provide such support. We believe that this clarification will be helpful to local authorities, many of which have been uncertain whether and to what extent they should provide support. All that is notwithstanding the commitment I gave to further discussions with the LGA.

Lord Greaves: The more I listened to the Minister, particularly once he got beyond repeating word for word what had been said in the Commons, the more interesting it got. His comments have confirmed that this is an extremely complex area, some of which does not belong in the Bill, and that he does not know the answers to some of the complexities that have been raised. I do not blame him for that. I am now even more convinced that the combination of the content of the schedule and the way in which it was introduced so late in another place make it another example of rushed, knee-jerk legislation, brought forward because the Bill presented an opportunity to deal with people taking advantage of local authority powers, which none of us denies is clearly a problem in a small number of places.
	I am still extremely unhappy about two broad areas. There may be more, but I am unhappy in particular about two. The first is the question of the relationship between this schedule and European law. So far as concerns failed asylum seekers and refugees in other European countries, I do not have a fundamental issue of principle. But the schedule would remove some of the rights and entitlements of citizens of EU and EEA countries who are in this country. I believe that this complex area is likely to lead to judicial challenge and judicial review and that it will end up in the European Court of Justice. The issue should be thought through far more carefully and discussed with our partners in Europe. If legislation is required, it should be the subject of separate legislation.
	The Minister said that rights under the Community treaties will be respected. That is all well and good, but he has not been able to tell me what those rights are and how they interact with what is being proposed in the schedule. I consider that to be extremely unsatisfactory.

Lord Filkin: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for giving way. I believed that I had covered most of the issues. I tried to give the clearest example why this is an urgent and important issue which has been brought to our attention by a number of local authorities. If any matters remain unaddressed, I shall write to the noble Lord before Report stage.

Lord Greaves: I understand the wish of the Minister and of the Government to react quickly to this matter. However, reacting quickly is no substitute for reacting in a way that will produce sensible legislation that will stick.
	The second area about which I am utterly alarmed by what the Minister said is the requirement for local authorities to report people if it appears to a local authority that paragraph 1 applies or may apply. The Minister referred to "reasonable suspicion". That could be disastrous for local community relations, particularly where people are working hard to receive and look after asylum seekers who have been dispersed to their areas.
	It is a simple fact that those who report on people who remain after their asylum claims have failed will immediately lose any confidence that exists among the communities of asylum seekers and among those who work with them locally. That is a fact of life. Perhaps the Minister will find out what happens in practice.
	It is not only people such as myself who sometimes turn a deaf ear and a blind eye in the interests of developing good relationships in working with asylum seekers; the same applies to employees of local authorities, central government and local police forces. Police officers involved with asylum seekers in two different regions have told me that the one thing with which they do not wish to become involved under any circumstances is removals. If that were to happen, the confidence built up and the contacts established with asylum seeker communities would be lost. They would be shunned and kept out. That is true of everyone who deals with asylum seekers.
	Agencies, such as the Immigration Service, have responsibility for removals. But placing a duty on local authorities—the provision will relate not only to social services but to district and parish councils—to report people about whom they have "reasonable suspicion" is a recipe for disaster. I am not talking here about principles and what should happen in an ideal world; I am talking about what happens on the ground. I believe that the Government should think again.
	Having said that, I believe that over the next few weeks many of us will try to get our minds around this schedule even further. In the meantime, I shall not press my opposition to the Question that the clause stand part.

Clause 48 agreed to.

Lord Dubs: moved Amendment No. 146:
	After Clause 48, insert the following new clause—
	"ADVICE OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
	(1) The Social Security Advisory Committee shall—
	(a) give advice and assistance to the Secretary of State in connection with the discharge of his functions under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and Parts 2 and 3 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, and
	(b) to perform such other duties as may be assigned to the Committee under any enactment.
	(2) The Secretary of State shall refer to the Committee for consideration and advice any questions relating to the operation of the said enactments as are causing public concern."

Lord Dubs: This is a probing amendment. I appreciate that the Minister may say that it is technically defective. I know that, but I dare say that his briefing notes tell him to say it.
	However, there is a point of principle at issue. It is surely desirable that independent scrutiny of the effects on asylum seekers of present levels of support should take place, even if it is intended that those levels of support should be only short term. That is the proposition. Whether it should be carried out by the Social Security Advisory Committee or by some other body similarly charged is not important for the purposes of exploring the principle of this matter.
	Why is the issue important? I believe that many Members of the Committee will have received from Oxfam and the Refugee Council a report entitled, Poverty and Asylum in the UK. It is based on a study, carried out on behalf of those bodies, of 40 organisations working with asylum seekers in England and Scotland. The findings suggest that 85 per cent of the organisations reported that their clients experience hunger; 95 per cent reported that their clients cannot afford to buy clothes or shoes; and 80 per cent reported that their clients are not able to maintain good health. Of course, that does not mean that all their clients are in that position. But it suggests that there is at least some cause for concern, even if the figures give a somewhat high level of response to certain questions.
	Perhaps I may be specific. First, under the intended procedures, asylum seekers cannot benefit from any uprating that might apply to other social security benefits. Secondly, their entitlements do not give them a passport to other benefits. For example, it has been estimated that asylum seeker families may receive a 24 per cent lower level of support than other families on income support and associated benefits. Of course, in the case of disability, there is also no passported entitlement to this benefit.
	With regard to single asylum seekers, the general proposition is that they receive only 70 per cent of the IS rates. I accept that NASS will also provide electricity and heating, and therefore there is some compensating benefit for the difference between the 70 and 100 per cent rates. Nevertheless, I believe that sufficient reason exists to be concerned about the position of asylum seekers. Even if they are here for only a short period of time and will not achieve refugee status or ELR, surely they are entitled to maintain their standard of living at a tolerable level. No one says that they should be given luxury and no one suggests that the benefits should be lavish. They would not be, even if they were receiving IS. However, the proposition is simply that there should be an independent scrutiny and assessment of the levels of support which asylum seekers receive—no more and no less. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I support Amendment No. 146, to which I have added my name. I certainly would not dream of trying to repeat the arguments put so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. He made his case very forcefully. This is a matter of principle. It is a probing amendment. The noble Lord offered a very practical solution to the issue.
	I declare a past and unpaid interest as a member of the SSAC over several years prior to becoming a Member of this House. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is right to point out the advantages to the Secretary of State, to Parliament and to those who seek asylum of bringing into the loop on these matters SSAC, or, indeed, another organisation such as SSAC which could provide the type of scrutiny required.
	The SSAC has the expertise required to give good advice to the Secretary of State. Indeed, only last week in your Lordships' House we were able to listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, paying tribute to the SSAC and its work, saying that it performed a valuable scrutiny role. So I am aware that Ministers see it as valuable.
	I hope that the Minister is able to give careful consideration to the principle behind the amendment. And while I am on my feet perhaps I can refer back briefly to what the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said. I am grateful to him for putting on record tonight the figures with regard to determination of other matters, trying to put more clearly the answers he tried to give on Tuesday, 9th July at col. 602 of Hansard when we were debating Amendment No. 98, which I moved. I am grateful to him for putting those matters on record as soon as was reasonably practicable.

Lord Greaves: I apologise to the Minister for not thanking him when I was last on my feet for the revised figures he has now produced. We are grateful for that. Issues still arise which we will want to discuss, but at least now we have the figures.
	We on these Benches support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. As I spoke earlier and do not want to repeat what the noble Lord said, I shall say no more.

Lord Judd: I declare an interest as a member of the Oxfam Association. In congratulating and thanking my noble friend Lord Dubs for focusing attention on this matter, I hope he will forgive me for re-emphasising one basic point; that is, in our own social security provision we have an underlying principle that no people should be allowed to fall below certain standards. That is because they are people. Whatever the situation of asylum seekers, they are people. Therefore we need an independent assessment to ensure that whatever arrangements may have been made in good faith by the Government, they do not result in people falling below the standard which, in other respects, we say is the absolute minimum.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dubs, with his wealth of experience in this field, for bringing forward this amendment. It stimulated an interesting and useful debate. However, I must say at the outset that the Government cannot accept the amendment, not only because it is technically deficient in one way or another, but also because of the way the NASS dispersal scheme has been set up.
	It is worth reminding ourselves that the scheme was designed to be separate from the main benefits system and it is important that that distinction is maintained. Support provided to those with asylum seeker status is different and separate from that provided to other residents, notwithstanding the points made by Members of the Committee, most passionately by my noble friend Lord Judd. It is not intended to replicate the social security system but to provide a means of short-term support aimed at providing, as necessary, a roof over the head of destitute asylum seekers and the wherewithal to meet their essential living needs.
	The SSAC does valuable work and may have an interest in the level of cash support that NASS provides to destitute asylum seekers. But that does not provide grounds for bringing the whole of NASS's work under its remit, which my noble friend seeks to do. Moreover, since under the present system the aim is to maintain NASS support rates at a particular level in relation to income support—75 per cent of the adult rate and 100 per cent for children under 16—it is not clear what role there would be for the SSAC in that area.
	As to NASS's role in the provision of accommodation for asylum seekers, that seems to be outside the normal scope of the SSAC's current activities and it is difficult to see that it would be appropriate to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to involve the SSAC in such matters, which certainly can give rise to public concern.
	It is of course arguable that the SSAC would provide a useful consultative point for NASS, but NASS already has regular meetings with voluntary organisations who are well placed to provide specialised advice on support for asylum seekers—organisations such as the Refugee Council and Migrant Helpline—to discuss operational and other matters at both chief executive and working levels. In addition, regional consortia have been set up to discuss regional issues raised by the dispersal scheme and work is progressing towards the setting up of a national consultation forum to discuss national asylum support issues. Therefore we would be fearful that there would be replication.
	Moreover the amendment would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to refer for consideration and advice any issue which was causing public concern. That would be extremely broad. Though we do not accept the need for the SSAC to have an asylum support remit, the committee is currently able to give advice on social security issues as it sees fit. I understand that the committee has frequent meetings with outside organisations and it maintains a close interest within its remit so such a duty would not be necessary.
	I believe I inadvertently said earlier "75 per cent" level of support; I have been advised that it is 70 per cent. I want to clarify that error at the outset.
	The SSAC already has a busy work programme to complete. It will not add significantly to the range of advice available to NASS. For those reasons I hope that my noble friend Lord Dubs, inspired as he was in tabling this interesting amendment, will feel able to withdraw it.

Lord Dubs: My noble friend has not filled me with great enthusiasm in his reply. But I was not surprised.
	I fully accept that the system for asylum seekers is separate from that of IS. I fully accept that it is short- term; indeed I said so when I moved the amendment. I also accept the Minister's point on the 70 per cent level. But the issue is really this. The 70 per cent figure is somewhat arbitrary. The Government have no objective evidence as to what the position is for people who are 30 per cent below that deemed the minimum for people on IS.
	I had always assumed that income support was the lowest level at which people could maintain a tolerably decent living standard, albeit a low one. All we are saying is that asylum seekers should not be significantly below that. The only evidence that I have seen as to the effect of that is the study jointly sponsored by Oxfam and the Refugee Council, to which I referred.
	My only plea in the amendment was that there should be an independent body, possibly the SSAC or possibly another body, which could look at this matter and report to government on it. I am sorry my noble friend feels unable to accept it. I shall read his speech with interest. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 146A and 146B not moved.]
	Schedule 3 [Withholding and Withdrawal of Support]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 147:
	Page 84, line 34, after "Article" insert "7 or"

Lord Bassam of Brighton: These amendments may appear complex, but they are designed to ensure that this measure works correctly from the outset and that it is consistently applied. They have a variety of effects that I shall now set out.
	To be most effective, the measures need regulation-making powers so that the Government can react quickly. There is a regulation-making power allowing the prohibition on providing support to be disapplied in certain cases and circumstances. That is now subject to affirmative resolution. The application of those measures also needs to be consistent. For that reason, any guidance issued by the Secretary of State to a local authority in relation to checking eligibility for support, and in relation to the duty to report those who fall within paragraphs 6 and 7 of Schedule 3—failed asylum seekers or persons in the UK unlawfully, and their dependants—will have the effect of being statutory guidance. In other words, it must be followed by local authorities.
	Where, despite careful and meticulous application of guidance, an ineligible person still receives support or assistance of the various types listed in paragraph 1 of the schedule, there should be protection for local authorities from being found to have acted outside their powers.
	Failed asylum seekers who have failed to comply with removal directions are excluded from support and assistance under paragraph 1 of Schedule 3. We are extending that provision to their dependants. That is consistent with the approach being taken under paragraphs 4 and 5 of Schedule 3—persons with refugee status abroad and citizens of other EEA states.
	We have also sought this opportunity to provide that a person with dual nationality, who is a British citizen, should continue to be able to be offered support and assistance in the current way. We are also ensuring that support may continue to be provided for persons who are asylum seekers until their claim for asylum is determined—where their claim has been refused and their rights of appeal are exhausted. Finally, these amendments also add the equivalent Northern Ireland provisions into the various types of support in paragraph 1 of Schedule 3. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: As I have received advice from the Local Government Association, it is right that I should refer to that and ask the Minister a question based on it. The Minister will be aware that the LGA does not believe that these amendments represent an acceptable amelioration of the provisions. Its argument is that in principle it does not support the idea of binding guidance whereby Ministers can attempt to fine-tune their fettering of local authority discretion. The Minister will also be aware that the LGA has urged noble Lords to reject these amendments. Can the Minister tell the Committee what consultation the Government have had with the LGA in regard to these amendments?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I do not have the benefit of having read closely the LGA submission. However, we have to listen carefully to points that it makes. I had assumed that these minor and technical amendments would be acceptable. I believe that they are useful in their extent, but clearly we are reminded of the importance and value of consultation. We would accept that the consultation on these points could have been better. It is perhaps the case that some of the minor and technical issues with which the amendments deal could have been better perfected. While consultation on the detail and on the implementation of the detail needs to be ongoing, we believe that the amendments are valuable. We shall continue our dialogue with the LGA so that we understand better the situation, and so that we are not at odds with the LGA on the way that the scheme will work.

Lord Dholakia: Amendment No. 158 refers to any guidance in relation to the authority concerned,
	"issued by the Secretary of State".
	Will the guidance notes be available to Parliament so that noble Lords can see precisely what the Government are recommending or advising local authorities?

Lord Avebury: I have a supplementary question. In view of what has been said about earlier failures, does the Minister have any plans for consultation with local authorities in connection with the relevant guidance that is set out in Amendment No. 158? Will the guidance be available for noble Lords to see before Report stage? What arrangements has the Minister already made for ensuring that local authorities have an opportunity to make representations about the form of guidance before it appears in its final version?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: At all times our objective is to ensure that we confer properly with the Local Government Association. For someone like myself who once worked for it, I suppose it is extremely important that I make that plain. I have an inherent belief that at all times we should seek to consult local government in trying to get matters right. My noble friend Lord Filkin and myself have made it plain that it was felt that consultation on this and the earlier example was not of the best. We shall endeavour to put that right.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, raised the point about the guidance being available to Parliament. I do not believe that we shall be able to make the draft guidance available in advance. The regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so there will be an opportunity for your Lordships to be apprised of those and to have a full, proper and open debate. We shall ensure that the LGA is fully consulted on its representations and on the guidance itself.
	I make a strong and important commitment to the Committee that, while accepting in this instance that some of the earlier consultation was not of the quality to which we would aspire in the future, I believe that these amendments are useful and valuable. Essentially, they are minor and technical. I hope that the Committee will endorse the amendments.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 148 to 158:
	Page 84, line 35, after "Order" insert "1972"
	Page 84, line 35, leave out "(general social welfare)" and insert "(prevention of illness, social welfare, &c.)"
	Page 84, line 39, at end insert—
	"( ) Article 18, 35 or 36 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I. 2)) (welfare and other powers which can be exercised in relation to adults),"
	Page 85, line 9, at end insert—
	"( ) to a British citizen, or"
	Page 85, line 14, at end insert ", or
	(d) in circumstances in respect of which, and to the extent to which, regulations made by the Secretary of State disapply paragraph 1."
	Page 85, line 16, at end insert—
	"(2A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(d) may, in particular, disapply paragraph 1 to the provision of support or assistance by a local authority to a person where the authority—
	(a) has taken steps in accordance with guidance issued by the Secretary of State to determine whether paragraph 1 would (but for the regulations) apply to the person, and
	(b) has concluded on the basis of those steps that there is no reason to believe that paragraph 1 would apply.
	(2B) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(c) or (d) may confer a discretion on an authority.
	(2C) A local authority which is considering whether to give support or assistance to a person under a provision listed in paragraph 1(1) shall act in accordance with any relevant guidance issued by the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (2A)(a)."
	Page 85, line 19, at end insert "or (d)"
	Page 85, line 37, leave out paragraph 5 and insert—
	"5 Paragraph 1 applies to a person if he—
	(a) has the nationality of an EEA State other than the United Kingdom, or
	(b) is the dependant of a person who has the nationality of an EEA State other than the United Kingdom."
	Page 86, line 4, at end insert—
	"(2) Paragraph 1 also applies to a dependant of a person to whom that paragraph applies by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)."
	Page 87, line 13, leave out "excuse" and insert "reason"
	Page 87, line 30, at end insert—
	"( ) A local authority shall act in accordance with any relevant guidance issued by the Secretary of State for the purpose of determining whether paragraph 1 applies or may apply to a person in the authority's area by virtue of paragraph 6 or 7."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 158A not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 159 to 162:
	Page 88, line 5, leave out "or" and insert "regulations under paragraph 2(1)(c) or (d) or other"
	Page 88, line 17, leave out ", but not determined, by the Secretary of State," and insert "by the Secretary of State but not determined,"
	Page 88, line 33, leave out "109(4)(c)," and insert "116(4)(c) and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (for which purpose a reference to the authority's area shall be taken as a reference to Northern Ireland),"
	Page 88, line 40, at end insert—
	"(2) For the purpose of the definition of "asylum-seeker" in sub-paragraph (1) a claim is determined if—
	(a) the Secretary of State has notified the claimant of his decision,
	(b) no appeal against the decision can be brought (disregarding the possibility of an appeal out of time with permission), and
	(c) any appeal which has already been brought has been disposed of.
	(3) For the purpose of sub-paragraph (2)(c) an appeal is disposed of when it is no longer pending for the purpose of—
	(a) Part 5 of this Act, or
	(b) the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (c. 68).
	(4) The giving of directions in respect of a person under a provision of the Immigration Acts is not the provision of assistance to him for the purposes of this Schedule."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 49 agreed to.

Lord Filkin: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In doing so, I suggest that the Committee consideration of the Bill recommence not before 8.28 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Craft Skills

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what they intend to do about the shortages in the number of people being trained in craft skills such as plumbing, electrical and gas fitting, despite the efforts of the Learning and Skills Council.
	My Lords, a number of my colleagues have asked whether a bad plumbing experience stimulated me to ask for this debate. The answer is no. The debate was stimulated by a discussion with my very reliable plumber. He is approaching 60 and considering retirement but does not know who will take over his business. His son, who followed him into the profession, has set up his own business and has no reason to carry on his father's business. Over the past 15 years he has not taken on any apprentices. He had done so previously but had given up because it cost too much money and involved far too much paperwork. He said:
	"Everybody I know is in the same boat. We are all of us between 55 and 65. We are all looking to retire. I don't know who's going to take over".
	I considered this an interesting issue. I have raised it with a number of other people, including the Worshipful Company of Plumbers, which provided me with a good deal of information. I have talked about the matter with further education college people.
	I was interested because, in my studies as an economist, I have constantly been worried about the British economy's low level of productivity. Over the years I have associated that very much with Britain's education system and, in particular, with the lack of qualifications. At one point I was concerned about the low number of people undertaking degrees. I felt that Britain lagged behind other countries. Of course we have caught up rapidly.
	It emerged strongly from the National Skills Taskforce work led by Chris Humphries, now director of City and Guilds Institute, that the major skill shortages in Britain are not at degree level, but at NVQ levels III and IV, which is the apprenticeship level. What is now called the advanced modern apprenticeship is a level II qualification, and HND and HNC are level IV qualifications, or foundation degree, which leads on to a degree level qualification. But the shortages are in those specific craft skills. The problem has, if anything, been exacerbated. In 1979 we trained in the region of 374,000 apprentices; we now train only about 200,000.
	Two recent publications from Her Majesty's Government have helped me in my research, a publication entitled Government Supported Work Based Learning for Young People in England issued on 20th June and Participation in Education, Training and Employment by 16–18 year olds, which appeared on 27th June.
	Of approximately 2 million young people in the 16 to 18 year-old cohort, 75 per cent, or 1.5 million, are in education and training of some kind or another; 55 per cent are in full-time education; 8 per cent are in government-supported training; and only 5 per cent are in employer-supported training, described by Sir John Cassels, in his modern apprenticeship report, as the ideal form. Seven per cent are in other forms of education and training. That leaves roughly 25 per cent of the age group participating in no education or training at all. Interestingly enough, the statistic has not changed since 1991.
	Of those 2 million young people, approximately 250,000 are in work-based education or training. Less than half—only 119,000—are pursuing the advanced modern apprenticeships, the level III qualification; 85,000 are pursuing the level II, which is the foundation modern apprenticeship; and 44,000 are engaged in other work-based training.
	Therefore, it looks as though we are a considerable way off Cassels's target. In total, we have about 12 per cent—250,000—actually in work-based education and training. Cassels's target was that 25 per cent of the age cohort should be in work-based apprenticeships of one kind or another. We have only 12 per cent—6 per cent of whom are in the advanced modern apprenticeships. Even if one includes the foundation modern apprenticeships, the figure is only 9 per cent. So we are a long way off the target.
	If one delves further into the figures, of the 119,000 pursuing the level III qualifications only half—49 per cent—achieve the qualification. Approximately 30,000 young people complete the apprenticeships each year at level III. One must remember that this 119,000 is spread over the three years. That is 5 per cent of the age cohort. We double that if we include the level II qualification.
	In the construction industry and some other areas the shortage problem is particularly great. The Employers Skill Survey, which backed up the National Skills Taskforce, reported:
	"Skill shortage vacancies for craft, sales and operatives are most likely to have serious impact on current performance [in the construction industry]. In particular, respondents indicated that around 53 per cent of skill-shortage vacancies for craft workers led to a loss of business.
	"The construction sector was most likely to respond that it anticipated future recruitment problems . . . Around 50 per cent of establishments in the construction sector reported that they anticipated recruitment problems".
	So the construction industry is perhaps a particularly bad example.
	I turn to the plumbing, electrical and gas-fitting industries. Roughly 15,500 young people are pursuing level II qualifications, but only 3,500 are pursuing level III qualifications. If one remembers that only 50 per cent achieve those qualifications and that the 3,500 is spread over three years, one is looking in the region of 600 a year achieving level III qualifications in these three broad areas. That is pitiful.
	I have a number of questions. First, why are the Government putting so much emphasis on the 50 per cent participation rate in universities when it is clear that there are real and urgent skills gaps in the craft and skills area?
	Secondly, what impact do the Government see the new educational maintenance allowances having? Are they not likely to encourage more young people to stay on at school in full-time education being pushed towards A-levels, the academic qualifications, rather than vocational qualifications? Is there not a danger that we shall still miss the buck on these academic qualifications?
	Thirdly, where is the incentive to undertake work-based learning? If one takes the engineering and manufacturing sector, the average cost of training an apprentice—leaving aside the employer cost—is between £13,000 and £16,000 a year. Yet the LSC is only paying £6,000 to £7,000 a year. The total cost of training an apprentice in this sector is almost £50,000 a year. Therefore, what is the incentive to the employer? One must add to that the bureaucracy, the sheer amount of paper to which my plumber referred.
	Lastly, when will the Government recognise that there must be an incentive to pursue qualifications? There must be some mechanism to stop cowboys entering the industry. Although only 50 per cent achieve the advanced modern apprenticeships, there is a 100 per cent take-up in terms of employment. In other words, one can get employment whether or not one has the qualification.
	Those in the industry are constantly undercut by cowboy operators. It costs a good deal to obtain high-level qualifications. It costs roughly £50,000 to train an apprentice. One then has ongoing costs in order to maintain that level of qualifications. I have a letter from a plumber in Norfolk who reckons that it costs him £3,500 every year just to maintain his qualifications. He cannot charge more than £15 an hour for his services because the cowboys come in and undercut him. Should we not be thinking in terms of operating not only on the supply side, in terms of training people, but also on the demand side, in terms of some form of registration? I put it to the Government that the minimum might be to ask trading standards officers to keep a register of those local traders—plumbers, carpenters and so on—who have the requisite qualifications.
	The Consumers' Association and the CAB, receive the largest number of complaints about the cowboys, about the rogue traders. I, as a consumer, would really like to be able to telephone someone to ask if they could give me the name of someone with the requisite qualifications.
	These are important issues. I hope that the Minister will have some answers to my questions.

Lord Dearing: My Lords, I look forward to hearing the Minister's answers. I congratulate the noble Baroness on introducing this debate and on concentrating on apprenticeships. I looked at the book of Lamentations on the state of Israel in my Bible; it contains seven pages. I can trace the lamentations on the state of technical and vocational education in this country back at least to the Paris exhibition of 1867, at which we won only 10 per cent of the prizes. In 1924, Ramsay MacDonald said that development of technical education was the greatest need of this country. As the noble Baroness said, it still is.
	About 20 reports on the subject were produced in the century up to 1969, and others subsequently, but apprenticeships, which were the core of technical skills training, reached their nadir during the 1970s and 1980s, when they practically disappeared. Despite their growth during the past four years, to which the Chancellor referred in his Statement this afternoon, the Cassels report says of apprenticeships that they are,
	"marginal to national life".
	Why? Because they have been "inconsistently delivered", "poorly managed" and,
	"poorly known about and understood".
	As the noble Baroness said, half of those who start out on the track do not finish it.
	I congratulate the Government on having the wisdom to appoint John Cassels to chair the committee to make recommendations, which it did last September. He has much experience and good sense. As I understand it, the Government has had the equal sense to accept the substance of his recommendations. But I should like to offer a few thoughts on the matter.
	The Cassels recommendations are based on three elements in the kit of a successful apprenticeship: first, the "can-do" skills in the national vocational qualification; secondly, what NVQs were long criticised for lacking, promoting the understanding of those skills through a technical certificate; and the key skills of English—or communications, as the report calls it—and of numeracy, so that apprentices can continue to update their skills.
	That is excellent, but it is getting a touch complex. I urge the Government to ensure that those three important principles are articulated so that they cohere rather than are disjointed. In particular, I suggest that to motivate young people to master standards of literacy and numeracy, they should be integrated into the technical certificate, so that young people can see them in context as relevant to what they are doing, rather than being a boring, irrelevant add-on. So my first piece of advice is to articulate apprenticeships: simplify them and run two schemes into one.
	My second piece of advice to government is: stay with it. The whole history of education is one of well-intentioned initiatives, followed by government saying, "Oh dear, we had better start again". In my experience of the field, it takes at least 10 years for employers to cotton on to the latest initiative. I repeat: stay with the Cassels initiative. I noticed that the Chancellor commits himself in his Statement only to the next couple of years and the expansion to 300,000. There is nothing about the vision as far as 2010 as in the Cassels report. We have a vision for higher education for 2010. What about skills education? Why not a commitment to that too?
	My third piece of advice is: bear in mind that the learning and skills councils have only just been set up. The national training organisations are in the process of being replaced by new bodies—sector skills associations. They are finding their way forward. With those two organisations finding their way forward, we need to involve employers. Unless the Government consider matters carefully with those new bodies, they will come a cropper and the intention to have a powerful launch will be met with loud and continuing complaints that we have muffed it.
	My fourth point is: do not be too proud to pilot new ideas before launching them. Again, history shows that we need enthusiasm, commitment, resolution and action. A bit of piloting when what is being done is new, rather than a continuation, will pay dividends.
	My next point is: we need strong promotion. One complaint of Cassels is that apprenticeships are poorly understood. As the noble Baroness said, only 5 or 6 per cent of apprenticeships take place on employers' premises. That shows how little they are known. We really must put money behind promotion and stay with it.
	If I may say so, the stock in trade of this House is having been around a while and having a bit of experience. Perhaps officials would be well advised to spend half an hour reading the relevant chapter of Professor Alison Woolf's recent book, published last month, entitled, "Does Education Matter?"—the chapter on vocational education. She makes it clear that if initiatives are government-led—institution-led—rather than employer-led, they will fail. We must ensure that line employers, rather than personnel departments, are in the lead. I remember the cost of employers not being in the lead with regard to NVQs.
	It is said that any fool can learn from his own mistakes. Let us hope that the Government have the wisdom to learn from mine.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for raising this critical issue today. It is an area about which I know that she feels passionately and she made many interesting points. Doubtless the Minister has made a careful note of each and every one of them, and we shall hear his answers shortly. I shall not ask quite so many questions, but I, too, hope for an answer.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, referred most interestingly to the need for simple and basic qualifications. The first qualification is so often important. I think that I have previously told the story of when I was in a factory in Plymouth presenting NVQs to the workforce. Towards the end of the ceremony, a level 1 NVQ in warehouse keeping, I think it was, was announced. An old lady came forward—I was told that she was 64. It was the first qualification that she had received in her life. She had tears streaming down her face as she stood in front of me. I must confess that I had tears too.
	I shall make only a short intervention. As your Lordships may know, I am chairman of the Engineering and Marine Training Authority, which was until recently the national training organisation for the engineering manufacture sector. The Government are now replacing NTOs with sector skills councils and we hope that our bid to be the sector skills council for the technology, engineering and science sectors will soon be approved.
	On previous occasions, I have ventured to bring to your Lordships' attention some of the difficulties that industry in general faces in addressing skills shortages. The responsibility for bridging the skills gap lies with both employers and government and they must work in partnership in addressing the need to raise skills levels in industry. Where employers devote resources to enhancing the skills base of their employees, in general, they are doing a good job. Small firms, in particular, have come to understand that their workforce is their most important resource and that investment in people is the key to their future business success.
	For a sector such as engineering, which is already one of the most highly trained, it is still essential, especially in difficult times, that training is encouraged so that staff are prepared fully to exploit the future. But we need to do more to encourage employers, especially smaller firms, to engage in training staff. Initiatives such as "learndirect" go some way to address the problem faced especially by small and medium-sized enterprises in releasing key staff from the workforce, but there is also a need—and here the onus is on the providers—to deliver training in a manner that is more appropriate to employers.
	I have previously drawn your Lordships' attention to the value of the modern apprenticeship framework and the significant impact that it has had on the number of people entering industry. Looking specifically at the engineering sector, the recruitment needs of the engineering industry require about 33,000 modern apprentices to be in training at any one time. In 1994, the number in training was about 8,000. Today it is 22,000, of which 18,000 are in England, 1,500 in Wales and perhaps 2,000 in Scotland. So while we have not reached the required number, we are moving in the right direction.
	In making that point, I have referred to the variations in the funding of modern apprenticeship programmes recently been put into place by the Learning and Skills Council. A young person aged 16 to 18 attracts the full national rate for a modern apprenticeship. But for those employers who train people over the age of 19 years, the funding available is only 56 per cent of the national rate. It is not available at all for 25-plus year-olds, except in Wales; and it is people aged 19 and above who the industry is particularly keen to attract.
	Of course, the engineering industry continues to take its concerns about these arrangements directly to the Learning and Skills Council, but I would urge the Government to press on the LSC the need for a rethink of this policy. Other very serious developments include the future funding arrangements for higher national diplomas, higher national certificates and NVQ level 4 qualifications. It is my understanding that financial support from the Learning and Skills Council for those qualifications has been dropped. That will have serious consequences for attracting technicians into the industry, where there is a strong need to do so. I also believe that it will have an impact on increasing entry into higher education from modern apprenticeship programmes because the vast majority of higher education applications that come from technicians are from those with HNC, HND or NVQ level 4 qualifications.
	I know that the Minister will realise that this need for progression from apprenticeship into higher education was a strong recommendation of last year's report by Sir John Cassels on the future of modern apprenticeships, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, referred. I urge the Government to press the LSC to reconsider this decision.

Lord Layard: My Lords, the debate could not be more timely. A shortage of non-graduate skills is staring us in the face. What is good is that we also have a Chancellor who, as he showed this afternoon, is willing to do something about it. The question is, what? What is the system we are trying to build? At present we have a system—if it is a system at all—that no one understands, bequeathed by the previous Conservative government. If one thinks of the people who really matter, none of them understands it. Children, parents, schoolteachers, careers teachers, careers officers and employers all do not understand it.
	One has to think afresh about how we create out of this situation, through building on it, a coherent strategy for producing the non-graduate skills we seriously lack. There is always the danger that we will look in all directions and continue to do this, that and the other. That will not work; it failed over the past 10 years. We saw that so far as there was a concentration on building up full-time vocational education, it did not produce a major increase in skills. The time has come to recognise that the central part of the strategy must be apprenticeship.
	I give three reasons: first, young people like apprenticeship best. A survey showed that students taking modern apprenticeship liked the experience more than students studying full-time for vocational qualifications. That is not surprising; they are being paid and can see the relevance of what they are learning. If we want to engage the one third—at least—of young people who currently stop learning at 16, it is inconceivable that we could do so on a large scale except by that method.
	That sounds like dumbing down, but I now want to make the opposite point. Until the big expansion of higher education and sixth forms in the 1960s and 1970s, most children from poor homes who got to the top rose by the apprenticeship route. They often then went on to degree level work. It was madness to close down that route in the belief that somehow the expansion of full-time education had replaced it. Sometimes the astonishment expressed that the social class mix in higher education has not changed shows the naivety of people who believed that that would be the only central instrument for expansion of opportunities. As we know, social mobility has fallen in recent decades. That is not unconnected with the closing down of that route.
	Secondly, employers like apprenticeship. It is often said that British employers will not support apprenticeship—that was said in the earlier debates on this topic. But interesting research carried out for the Cassels committee shows that they were not asked. It turned out that even among large employers, only one third had ever been asked to take on a modern apprenticeship.
	Thirdly, apprenticeship in those countries that rely mainly on it for non-graduate skills works extremely well. I am talking not only of Germany but also of Denmark and the Netherlands. Those countries have been more successful in controlling youth unemployment than countries such as France or the United States which have relied more on the full-time route.
	It is not simply a matter of full-time versus part-time, because in the countries that use apprenticeship the age of entry has been going up. It is typically now 17 or 18. The issue is not one of premature selection but of how we can get people effectively into work with a relevant skill. If one asks how we are doing, modern apprenticeship was re-established under the previous government; an excellent step, but as we know, the quality is often poor and the quantity too small. To deal with both quality and quantity will require a major leadership effort from the top, as with the New Deal, but that is even more difficult.
	The particular issue at present, which will focus efforts, is the question of the target for opportunities. It has been discussed before by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. We must have a target for those not going to higher education and it must make sense, be easily understood and pictured, and offer a route into work earning; all the things those young people want. It must be the kind of target that can be set before someone of 13 or 14 as attainable if they work reasonably hard, and that will motivate and satisfy them. It must be the chance of an apprenticeship.
	The present figure according to the Government for entry of a cohort into modern apprenticeship at one or other level is 22 per cent. The spending review states it should be 28 per cent by 2004, and for 2010—as has been said—the Cassels committee, of which I was a member, has proposed 35 per cent; perhaps we may call it a third. If the Prime Minister is looking for a target that will fire up young people, it cannot be, as it says in the spending review, a wider vocational target. It has to be something concrete; a target for apprenticeship.
	We can have other wider vocational targets, but for heaven's sake let us have the apprenticeship target proposed by the Cassels report; a target that is exciting, simple, concrete, that can fire our youth and be talked about in the pub.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am sure we have all had bad plumbing experiences, even if it was not that that prompted my noble friend. Craftsmen and builders seem to need no tuition in the art of teeth-sucking and acerbic comments on the work of their predecessors. I realise also that they probably need some training in the art, or science, of meteorology, because there always seems to be a problem with the weather, fine or wet, hot or cold.
	More seriously, they need training in management skills, in addition to the skills that have been mentioned in the debate. We need more than just a reduction in red tape. By temperament, those who follow such careers are unlikely to want to deal with paperwork—such is my experience. If people are to operate small or medium-sized businesses—even tiny businesses—they must be able to do the paperwork. On a broader level, they need project management skills. The skills needed to run substantial projects seem to be almost wholly lacking in this country.
	I recognise that, tonight, I am among an illustrious group of educationists. The question that occurred to me when my noble friend said that she would ask her Unstarred Question was whether the construction industry could cope with the infrastructure that the country needs. I speak from a London perspective, and my figures show that London needs almost 32,000 more homes every year, in order to meet existing need and the forecast extra demand, which is thought to involve expansion equivalent to the size of the city of Leeds over the next 15 years. London is a stark example, but the problem applies elsewhere, if to a lesser extent. In London and elsewhere, we need an improved transport infrastructure. As well as major provision, such as CrossRail in London, we need less headline-grabbing projects. Housing and transport must be developed in tandem in order for our economy to work.
	I heard the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, on the "Today" programme this morning. He spoke, from an Essex perspective, about the Chancellor's expected announcement about spending on housing. What he said amounted to something like, "Not in Essex, without the transport". I have a more positive view, but the point that he made was important.
	There are—properly—ambitious targets for development on brownfield land. The remediation of contaminated land or more small-scale rehabilitation of second-hand buildings seems likely to require greater skills than are required for work on a nice, unsullied site. If we are to accommodate sustainable growth, that is hugely important.
	As we have heard, the future is not bright. Recent figures show that the average age of people working in the industry is getting higher. Had she had time, my noble friend would have asked why the Learning and Skills Councils appear to discriminate against the over-19s. The industry wants to encourage 19 to 24 year-olds into apprenticeship, but funding for that group is 56 per cent of that for those aged from 16 to 18. For those over 26, there is no funding.
	My noble friend mentioned the cost of maintaining qualifications. I was struck by the huge annual cost of maintaining qualifications, which enables people to charge £15 an hour. My professional background is as a solicitor, and I recognise the cost of maintaining qualifications. My profession can charge a great deal more than that to cope with such costs. Over the past five years, the numbers in university courses in building, construction and civil engineering are down by about 50 per cent. We are all aware of the stories of recruitment from overseas and the twice-yearly salary increases, measures designed to keep the industry going.
	My noble friend also raised the issue of status and the ideal of a work-based apprenticeship. In Germany, those who teach apprentices are called Meister, and a similar qualification here would do much to indicate the value placed on skills-based qualifications. It is telling that average earnings in the construction industry grew faster than in the economy as a whole. That was not because of the price of materials.
	Time is against me. I should like to mention some of the initiatives that are taking place. I assume that my noble friend is not asking what the Government will impose—neither of us wants the Government to impose anything—but what they intend. I hope that we will hear some good news from the Minister.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, not just for bringing the issue before the House but for the passion with which she has spoken on the matter every time that she has had the opportunity. As always with such debates, time is a problem. Therefore, we can scratch only the surface of a debate that deserves a great deal more time.
	Our concern about the shortage of people trained in craft skills—especially plumbing and electrical and gas fitting—will strike a chord with many people in the country. Skills shortages extend throughout industry. For example, the construction industry, which has just been referred to, estimates that the sector requires at least another 74,000 people each year up to 2005, simply to fill the gap. Last October, in collaboration with the construction industry, the Department for Work and Pensions launched an initiative with the aim of training and placing 1,000 New Deal workers as electricians, plumbers and bricklayers. However, that scratches only the surface of what is needed. To fill that gap of 74,000, the New Deal attracts only 2,500 people each year into the construction sector. There was yet another initiative, designed to turn single parents into gas fitters, with the intention of creating 4,500 jobs in the energy sector. Will the Minister tell us the extent to which that scheme has been successful? What percentage of the target has been achieved?
	The Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Trade and Industry also published details of a joint venture to encourage,
	"more than a quarter of young people to enter modern apprenticeships before they are 22 years old by 2004".
	That quotation came from a press release issued by the Department for Education and Skills on 29th November last year. Last November, 213,000 16 to 19 year-olds were undertaking modern apprenticeships. Since that was announced, the Learning and Skills Development Agency has published a study saying that the quality of training has fallen, particularly since April 2001. I support my noble friend Lord Trefgarne in congratulating the Engineering and Marine Training Authority on the work that it does to further the skills and training agenda. I also encourage the Minister to respond positively to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the funding of modern apprenticeships, which appears to discriminate against those aged over 19.
	Interestingly, the voluntary sector has had some success with many young people who have found difficult the traditional route through education to training, particularly those who have been disaffected and have shown great reluctance to become involved. For example, UK Skills, based at the offices of the Prince's Trust, presides over many shows and competitions designed to encourage the taking up of skills training. Other examples include Quaker Social Action and the Look Ahead Housing and Care Association, which have trained unemployed and formerly homeless people in basic skills such as plumbing, carpentry and painting. Yet, despite all that is going on, statistics from the Department for Education and Skills show that overall participation in training and employment by young people has declined and that any improvements have been slight.
	Although the proportion of 16 to 18 year-olds in full-time education has increased marginally since 1997—by 0.4 per cent—the number of people in government-supported training and employment-funded training has decreased. Between 1997 and 1998, the number of young people starting work-based learning programmes has also decreased by 11,000.
	I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Layard, who called for greater consultation with employers on skills training and greater promotion of such training. That is needed. I know that there is concern about the level of consultation on such matters.
	If we look ahead to the outcome of the consultation paper on provision for 14 to 19 year-olds, we can see that work-related training will be costly. The Association of Colleges, the Secondary Heads Association and the National Association of Head Teachers all estimate that a further £372 million will be required. Not only will additional funds be needed for equipment and teaching resources, for example, but also we need a sea change in the staffing situation within our schools and colleges. We know that there are problems of recruitment and retention with regard to science teachers. Furthermore, the underpinning subjects that support the practical and vocational subjects will require more teachers and lecturers of science, maths and technology.
	Perhaps I may say en passant that, with hindsight, one of the greatest errors was not to have developed technical education post war. We can all look back and regret that. It has been partly rectified by the introduction of the national curriculum, assessment and testing, the introduction of science and technology into the primary curriculum, the development of vocational qualifications and the introduction of city technology colleges and specialist schools. But we know that there is more to do. Here I echo a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. The gap lies in the underpinning knowledge that supports vocational training. If that were to be rectified, then a great deal of progress could be made.
	Increased opportunities for more effective and high quality vocational education has widespread support. The benefits of a better respected vocational stream in our education system would be welcome. It would make for a more competitive workforce and would emphasise that there is more than simply an academic route to personal success and fulfilment. It would encourage many young people who currently feel disaffected to take a greater interest in school. Furthermore, it would go a long way towards increasing respect both for academic and vocational qualifications.
	To achieve all this we need less gimmickry, far less complexity—another point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing—greater focus and adequate support for the institutions; that is, the schools, training providers and colleges of further education to enable them to deliver the necessary programmes. Above all, we need world-class vocational institutions as much as we need world-class universities. That would go a long way towards producing first-class craft skills such as those asked for by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp—plumbers, electricians and gas fitters—in the numbers that the country requires.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, for launching the debate in such a perceptive and effective way. The debate has given us the occasion to discuss an important aspect of the national economy and the welfare of our people. I should emphasise that if in my responses to the numerous questions put to me by the noble Baroness I fail to answer some of them I shall certainly write to her. However, in the limited time we have available I shall do my best to address them all.
	I agree with the noble Baroness that we must recognise that we still have real skills shortages. An underlying theme of the debate has been that too few of our young people engage in further education and training. The figure of 25 per cent of all young people not taking on further training is ridiculously high for an advanced society such as ours. We need to address ourselves specifically to skills training. I recognise that that has been identified by speakers on all sides of the House, in particular with regard to the craft skills that are so well known to homeowners. I shall draw a veil over my own experience. The builders are still in at my home and I have no wish to complicate an already difficult negotiating position.
	However, we are discussing here the wider skills base rather than only those so essential to the home, a point emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. We must address the skills requirements that underpin our industrial society and economy. Of course the Government recognise that skills shortages present an important challenge. The gap in productivity—lagging 30 per cent behind Germany and 55 per cent behind the United States—demonstrates that we cannot be complacent about our performance. We still have a long way to go. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, clearly emphasised the main point of the debate; that is, that we need to concentrate on skill levels below graduate provision, in which we are making great strides.
	The challenge of maintaining our skills base in an ever-changing world is real, but we should not overstate the present position. Even given the well-recognised gaps with regard to the provision of training, it is still the case that employment levels are high, our economic performance has been good, we have a buoyant labour market, wage inflation remains reasonably stable—well within the range viewed by the Bank of England as consistent with its inflation target—and the Industrial Trends survey from the CBI suggests that employers' concerns about skills shortages are well below recent peaks. That is not to suggest any complacency and in a moment I shall move on to detail how we intend to meet the challenges. However, we ought not to exaggerate the problems or to underestimate the progress which has been made over recent years.
	The establishment of the Learning and Skills Council, which several noble Lords have been considerate enough to recognise will need time to bed down and reach its maximum effectiveness, is a sound concept. Its objectives are directed exactly towards ensuring that we have in place a sound strategy for dealing with skills shortages in our society, identifying and then meeting them.
	Within that framework, it is important to recognise the crucial role played by employers. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, began his remarks by commending the insights of a former Labour Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald, into our industrial skills problems. The noble Lord will forgive me for observing that only a Cross-Bencher would commend to a Labour spokesman former Prime Minister MacDonald. Nevertheless, I recognise that he demonstrated considerable insight into the matter. It is a problem that society has had to face for a very long time.
	I wish to emphasise the development of the sector skills councils. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has been far too modest about his own important role in the development of the technology, engineering and science sector council, which we anticipate will be one of the first to move fully into operation. For the councils to be successful it is important that employers take the lead. The weakness of the former national training organisations lay, I believe, in the fact that they were constantly making demands on employers without actually meeting their needs. The sector skills councils are designed not only to reflect accurately employers' needs, but to be directed by them in order to discover how any shortages can best be met.
	Progress is being made in the area, although I recognise the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that care must be taken over the establishment of the sector skills councils. We cannot afford a failed experiment as a result of which confidence collapses. Thus we are taking the greatest care to involve employers and all other relevant parties in the development of the sector skills councils. However, as I have said, we have already seen conspicuous success in one sector, in which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has a particular interest.
	The sector skills councils have been designed to address some of the points that were made so forcefully in the course of our debate. My noble friend Lord Layard raised the question of modern apprenticeships and the targets that we should set. I agree that it is important to establish clear and realisable targets, which are sufficiently ambitious to force the pace. However, I am not sure that it is sensible to set targets for the proportion of entry into apprenticeships. It is probably better to target the outcomes; that is, the proportion of young people across the board who manage to achieve levels 2, 3 and 4 skills. That is exactly the strategy that the Learning and Skills Council is pursuing, and the Government today announced new targets to improve figures and to encourage the council's ambitions and plans for this work.
	The question of support for apprenticeships was raised. Apprenticeships are supported to the extent of £14,000 for an engineering AMA, which exceeds the public funding for a university undergraduate, including loans. So students are not necessarily sold short. I agree with my noble friend Lord Layard that there is a problem in regard to marketing and making attractive the whole area of vocational education and the opportunities it offers. That is a challenge that we need to meet, and this debate has gone some way towards meeting that challenge.
	A great deal of the debate focused on the issue of the reforms necessary to modern apprenticeships. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, generously identified that the numbers of modern apprenticeships in engineering have been increasing, but not at a rate sufficient to meet the needs of the economy and to reflect the opportunities that we wish to provide for our young people.
	I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, referred to the Cassels report, to which many Members of the House contributed. It is an important document and points the way forward. We are committed to investing an initial £180 million over the financial years 2001–04 to provide the necessary muscle behind the concepts of that excellent report. We have in place an action plan with the Learning and Skills Council to implement its recommendations, to ensure that all modern apprenticeships meet the highest standards and to encourage take-up by both employers and young people.
	My noble friend Lord Layard emphasised that we are in danger of neglecting an important sector of society—that is, those people who have the ability to proceed along vocational routes but who are not sufficiently encouraged or motivated to pursue the strategies which are now in place to ensure successful development. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, emphasised that we should have the necessary strategy in place for progression so that people who begin at one stage on the ladder do not feel that there are any barriers to prevent them achieving their full potential.
	People should be able to advance according to their abilities and reach the highest level possible. We will enhance vocational education in this country once people can see a progression route and an attraction which matches the well-known chartered route through academic qualifications and higher education.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to further education and the role it can play. The whole House will rejoice at the 1 per cent real increase in support for further education for those colleges whose performances match up to the demanding standards of the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Education. So real resources are being committed to a sector which has been starved of investment in the past and which needs enhancement. Again that is proof of the importance that we place on vocational development.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked about energy aspects. We are attempting to place 4,500 people in jobs in the next three years across occupations in gas and engineering construction. Further research is under way to determine whether there are other occupations within the energy sector which should be included in the strategy. Ambition Energy was officially launched on 10th June. So far, 41 people have progressed to training in energy jobs. During the remainder of this year it is planned that a further 200 places will be available for people undertaking gas network operative training and 400 places in central heating installation. That brings us closer to some of the aspects introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in regard to the needs of home owners.
	In conclusion, the Government are seeking to overhaul the skills supply system in this country. We have established the LSC, which will play an important role, and in Wales the National Assembly has gone further by integrating post-16 education and skills with higher education. Business-led regional development agencies have a prime responsibility to bring about the climate in which skills and productivity become the engine of regional and local economic growth. We are introducing sector skills councils and backing them with resources.
	In his Statement today the Chancellor has addressed the question of enhancing the skill levels of this country but a great deal of work has still to be done. Mention was made that in some cases we have only a three-year strategy. Once we hit the targets of the three-year strategy we can then plan for the momentum necessary to develop skill levels so that by 2010 we will be in a position to meet many of the targets essential to our nation.

[The Sitting was suspended from 8.26 to 8.28 p.m.]

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill

House again in Committee.
	Clause 50 [International projects]:

The Earl of Sandwich: moved Amendment No. 163:
	Page 27, line 33, at end insert—
	"( ) arrange or assist the settlement of refugees, including the disabled and vulnerable"

The Earl of Sandwich: This amendment follows the short debate that we had with the Minister on 18th June when I asked, among other things, whether the Government intended to encourage new gateways for asylum seekers and, in particular, attract recognised refugees to the UK under the managed migration policy. I asked again during the Second Reading debate and I received a sympathetic letter from the Minister, dated 27th June. I am aware that the clause refers to refugees, albeit cursorily, in subsection (3)(a). However, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees believes, and I agree, that there needs to be a much clearer statement in the Bill.
	I do not have the impression that the Government are really committed to the resettlement of refugees as an alternative, even though half the work has already been done for them by the United Nations. Refugees often include among them a high level of skills, and in many instances there are doctors, lawyers and those who have been targeted by a regime precisely because of their professional and sometimes political skills.
	I am reassured by the Minister that such people can apply to embassies via the entry clearance officers as long as they meet the United Kingdom criteria—and I would emphasise, as long as there is personal security for them. They may now wish to apply under the skilled migrants' scheme. As the Minister states in his letter,
	"increasing the number of avenues for legal migration to the UK may help to reduce the number of asylum applications".
	That would surely have some effect on the illegal trafficking of asylum seekers through places like Sangatte. That point was well understood during the Committee stage in another place. It may be of interest to the Committee that in 2001 Australia received more than 6,000 refugees under UNHCR resettlements, Canada received 10,000, Norway received 1,200 and Sweden received more than 1,000 from countries such as Kenya, Turkey and Pakistan. We are proposing to accept only a few hundred, and not for some time.
	I shall try not to take up much more of the Committee's time, but I was disappointed to hear that the UN scheme may take another three to five years to get off the ground. What is the justification for such a delay? What lessons do we still need to learn? We remember from many years ago the resettlement of refugees under various programmes such as those in Indo-China.
	I understand the Minister's arguments about the EU scheme and it is essential to encourage those larger countries that do not implement it already—notably France and Germany. At the same time, surely we could go ahead on our own.
	As a second part to the amendment, I draw the Committee's attention to an under-used project of UNHCR known as the "10 or more plan". The aim of the scheme is to enable a minimum number of refugees who are physically disabled or who belong to a vulnerable group to be included in a special quota. The UNHCR's view is that 10 is a disappointingly low number, which should be expanded to offer a realistic prospect of protection for the large number of refugees who potentially could fall within that category.
	Many of the refugees in that category may have been victims of torture or violence in addition to persecution, and again they will be among the most skilled professionals who have been targeted. They are excluded or made to suffer through no fault of their own even from those societies that claim to receive them as refugees.
	Will the Minister consider the matter and give us some assurance that the scheme can be better utilised by the United Kingdom now or in the future? I beg to move.

Lord Hylton: I recall that during the hostilities and endless fighting that followed the break-up of the former Yugoslavia, a significant number of people were admitted to this country precisely because they were disabled and/or vulnerable, as referred to in the amendment. I believe that the scheme worked extremely well, and it could well be the precedent for future schemes. In that connection there may be scope both for temporary admission—for hospital treatment or specialist rehabilitation, for example—and for permanent admission for resettlement here. The Explanatory Notes to the clause state:
	"Pilot projects have already been undertaken".
	That is nice to know, but will the Minister tell us about those pilot projects? What kind were they and what result was achieved? Can useful lessons be learnt from them?
	My noble friend the Earl of Sandwich mentioned the vexed question of Sangatte in France. I have raised the matter in correspondence and in Questions in your Lordships' House. It is most unsatisfactory, if only because it has led to a considerable number of deaths of people in transit through the Tunnel. It has also severely disrupted freight services, causing loss of employment in this country. I hope that the recent conversations between the Home Secretary and his counterpart in France will lead to significant improvements in the situation in the short term—not next year, or in five years time.
	The amendment would open the way for future collaboration between this country and the UNHCR, which might, for example, be asked to identify in France people who are genuine refugees in its opinion. Having carried out that exercise, the UNHCR could then find out who among them had close connections with the United Kingdom, whether those were personal connections through family and friends, or the community connection of belonging to a minority that is already well established in this country, and which is therefore capable of giving support and assistance. Genuine refugees with a good knowledge of English could be identified. Even among those who are not recognised by the UNHCR as genuine bona fide refugees, it might be possible to acknowledge those who are worthwhile migrants and whose work skills might find an outlet by meeting employment needs in this country. On all those grounds, I ask the Government to give serious consideration to the amendment.

Lord Dholakia: I should like the Minister to clarify the clause. Subsection (1) clearly sets out the range of projects in which the Government may participate. The Explanatory Notes state:
	"Such projects may have as their aim, amongst others, the return of migrants both inside and outside of the United Kingdom to their country of origin by voluntary or compulsory means".
	However, Clause 50(4) states:
	"Subsection (1) does not . . . confer a power to remove a person from the United Kingdom".
	What is the purpose of that subsection in relation to removing people to their country of origin?

Lord Filkin: I shall reply first to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, about this clause, which in some ways went usefully over the ground of our short debate at Second Reading, which I thought was excellent.
	We have set out our commitment to resettlement. In essence, it recognises that there is a certain happenstance at present as to who can make a case for asylum in Britain. It is driven more by geography—whether people can physically get here to make a claim; or—using words carefully—whether in some cases people have the financial means to pay a trafficker to help them to get here. Therefore, one is aware of the injustice for people, for example, in Central Africa whose need could arguably be significantly greater but there is presently no international process for recognising that need on any scale. All we did in the debate was to recognise that that is a serious issue. Jack Straw, when he was Home Secretary, also marked that in his speech at Lisbon. We reflected that we should be happier in a world, different from how it is now, which allowed more managed processes. All one is saying at this stage is that this is a small but important start to recognise that there ought to be alternative routes to recognise the need to resettle people who are in the greatest need. Whether that would reduce illegal migration, I am less certain. But even if it would not, that is not necessarily a reason for not doing it.
	I was asked why such a provision is not on the face of the Bill. As I understand it, it is on the face of the Bill. Clause 50(1)(e) provides wide scope to participate in resettlement, including the provision of financial support to international organisations and financial or other assistance to individual beneficiaries of the resettlement scheme, which is why the provision is so placed.
	It was asked why this particular time period was indicated. The UNHCR advised on a time-scale to ensure that the programme was properly set up of between three and five years. We do not have to keep to that time-scale if we feel that we can move more rapidly. Consultation is presently taking place on the setting up of the scheme. The aim would be for the scheme to be be in operation possibly towards the end of 2003—resources permitting, as ever.
	We had tended to infer that the amendment focused more on the issue of disability and vulnerability, because the first part of the clause effectively already contains the power to do what the amendment seeks. Clause 50 contains the legal basis for the funding of participation in the quota scheme—the details of which we are developing. It is not designed to set out the details of eligibility, but its wording is deliberately broad, referring to "migrants" rather than to "refugees", to enable us to assist the dependent family of a refugee if the members of that family are not refugees themselves.
	I can also assure the Committee that the resettlement gateway will be humanitarian in its nature and will offer asylum in the UK to selected refugees whose life, liberty, safety or other fundamental human rights cannot be protected in his or her country of asylum.
	It is inevitable that some of the refugees may be disabled or may have been seriously traumatised by their experiences. I hope that most will be able to use the Ten or More Plan scheme which already provides resettlement for disabled refugees with medical needs. I note the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about the extent to which this has been used. I do not have the answer at my fingertips but I shall write to the noble Lord on the matter and any lessons that we have had from its operation to date that might inform the future development of that or similar schemes.
	In operating the new quota scheme, it is likely that the UNHCR will first carry out a selection exercise and then pass on to the UK applications that are thought likely to meet our criteria. We have not yet determined what those criteria will be, but we shall not be discriminating against those with disabilities.
	I hope that my response at least gives some comfort to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. I shall reflect further on any other points that he or other Members of the Committee raised. In the meantime, I invite the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Hylton: Will the Minister say something about the existing pilot projects, and about the relevance of this amendment to the Sangatte situation?

Lord Filkin: In regard to the Sangatte situation, I have been advised informally that the meeting on Friday with Mr Sarkozy went well. I have seen some press briefing on the matter, courtesy of the Opposition Benches, but I do not have any greater detail as to what happened—apart from saying that we are pretty optimistic that there is an agreement to close the centre and for there to be a timetable for doing so.
	There will clearly need to be some process whereby the current inhabitants of Sangatte are appropriately dealt with. I do not intend to venture further into exactly what that process is until I have seen the nature of what was agreed on Friday. It would not help the noble Lord if I did so. No doubt we can give him further details when those details are clear. I shall write to him on the subject. As to the results of the pilot projects, I have no information at present, so I shall similarly send the noble Lord a note on that point.

The Earl of Sandwich: I thank my noble friend for his support, and I am encouraged by what the Minister has said about the timetable. I am less certain as to the nature of the scheme. I am sure that all Members of the Committee will look forward to hearing more about it in the future. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 50 agreed to.
	Clause 51 agreed to.
	Clause 52 [Detention by Secretary of State]:

Lord Avebury: moved Amendment No. 163A:
	Page 28, line 18, after "detained" insert "for a reasonable and limited period"

Lord Avebury: As we begin to debate Part 4 of the Bill, I cannot refrain from registering a protest at the way in which this Bill is being handled, and particularly at the necessity to begin this important debate on detention at 14 minutes before nine o'clock, knowing that we have another two hours in front of us to deal with some of the most important provisions in the Bill.
	I resent the way in which the Government are bulldozing this legislation through this place. It would have been much better had adequate time been allowed in the fullness of the day, instead of making us sit night after night, as we have done so far at Committee stage.

Lord Filkin: I do not in the slightest want to indulge in an argument with the noble Lord. I thought that we had had some understanding that there would be six days in Committee. Clearly, there have been some tensions at times when we have had Statements. But to the best of my knowledge the liaison between the Front Benches has been most helpful and courteous and I have been appreciative of that.

Lord Avebury: When those agreements were made, we did not anticipate having Statements day after day, taking up a considerable amount of the afternoon; nor did we think that, as happened on the previous Committee day, discussion of orders in the dinner hour would take up far more than the hour allotted to them.
	I wanted to make that protest because, while matters are agreed between the usual channels and I perfectly well appreciate that my noble friends have been involved in those discussions, there are other Members of this place who need the time to prepare amendments, to table them and to get their heads round what is an extremely complicated piece of legislation. I have made my point and I hope that the Minister will take it into consideration in looking at the timetable for the remainder of this Bill.
	In moving Amendment No. 163A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 164A and 164B. The first of these amendments is about ensuring that the tests imposed by Article 5.1.f of the European Convention on Human Rights is satisfied by the Secretary of State in exercising his powers under Clause 52(1) to detain a person pending that person's removal. Those words should also have been inserted after the word "detained" in line 27 because the same conditions apply. If the principle were accepted, they should also be inserted in paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act which gives immigration officers similar powers. I realise that the amendment does not completely satisfy the purpose we intended. We should have to tidy it up if the principle were accepted.
	In the case of Saadi the Court of Appeal looked at the legitimacy of detention at Oakington where the court was told that in the absence of special circumstances the Secretary of State has determined that it is not reasonable to detain an asylum seeker for longer than about a week. The court found that the manner in which the power of detention was being exercised was within the provision of Article 5.1.f and we entirely agree with that. However, we want to be sure that existing practice is treated as the bench mark and should any future Secretary of State lengthen the period of detention he would come up against the legal barrier that the amendment seeks to impose.
	I turn to Amendment No. 164A on written reasons for detention and challenge of the accuracy of those reasons. In the White Paper the Government said that initial reasons for detention would be given by way of a check list similar to that used for bail in a magistrates' court. However, that implies that further and more detailed reasons will be given at some other stage. We discussed this matter about two years ago in a debate on detention in general. The Government then gave an assurance that full reasons for detention would be given to everyone after a fixed interval. So far as I know, that has not happened. It is important that people who are being detained should know in greater detail than a check list the reasons why they are being detained. Similarly, we believe that they should have an opportunity to challenge those reasons so that when the case comes before an adjudicator they will have the full story of why the person was detained in the first place, and the reasons why that person believed that he should not have been detained.
	Amendment No. 164B would satisfy a point raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. In paragraph 84 of its report, it stated that Clause 52(7) provides that the powers to detain will be exercisable where the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to suspect that he may make a decision to remove that person but does not expressly provide that it may be exercised only where the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds.
	The department told the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the Secretary of State would have reasonable grounds and that if he did not that would be unlawful. We join the Joint Committee on Human Rights in hoping that the courts will take the same view. But we also share its view that in order to avoid any possible doubt we should insert the word "only" before the words "where the Secretary of State" in what was Clause 49(7). It drew the matter to the attention of the House. I now suggest that we follow its advice and put this small amendment in the Bill to ensure that there is no possible doubt. I beg to move.

The Earl of Sandwich: I hope that it will be in the interests of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, as well as the Committee if we debate Amendment No. 167 with Amendment No. 164A relating to the written reasons for detention. I have notified the Minister.
	I have argued on previous Bills for written reasons. I believe that the proposed new clause would meet the many concerns of both detainees and of those who visit detainees. I declare an interest here as a patron of the Haslar visitors group. We shall hear more later today about the increase of the use of detention so I shall not detain the Committee on that. Suffice it to say that far too many detainees have been detained before an initial decision has been made. It is particularly important that all detainees understand the reason for their detention. Many will have had previous experiences of police cells, ill treatment or even torture. Therefore, any periods of detention will cause them anxiety. Any detention which does not appear to be justified or to have a time limit will be additionally traumatic.
	As I pointed out previously, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate currently provides detainees only with a form now known as 1S91R on which it indicates in broad terms the reasons for detention. No attempt is made to link these general assertions to the detainee's individual circumstances. The information is of little practical use, therefore, to the detainee when coming to hearings. It is essential that a detainee is given reasons which are intelligible or he will not have sufficient information on which to challenge the lawfulness of his detention.
	At the Report stage of the Immigration and Asylum Bill in October 1999, several noble Lords argued for full written reasons for detention. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, replied (at col. 897 of the Official Report of 18th October 1999) that the check list would be tailored to individual circumstances. Despite that assurance, the new form did not allow space for a specific reference to the special needs of the individual.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who was then on the Front Bench, gave a further assurance in his reply that he accepted the points made, the instructions would be reviewed and he hoped that the form would be amended.
	I again raised the issue on 27th March of last year during our debate on the asylum detention rules but received no satisfactory answer. I very much look forward, therefore, to the answer that we shall receive today.

Lord Dholakia: The amendment to which I speak is grouped with Amendments Nos. 163A, 164A and 164B. Amendment No. 164ZB is not numbered on the Marshalled List but is printed under Amendment No. 164A. It is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Avebury and myself. At page 28, line 24, the amendment seeks to insert the words:
	"Victims of torture, including rape, whose trauma is likely to be compounded by being detained for an indefinite period in conditions which may be reminiscent of those which they fled, will be exempt".
	It is similar to Amendment No. 177ZA. I shall speak to both amendments at this stage. I hope that that will be in order.
	An interesting point in this clause about the detention by the Secretary of State is that a person may be detained under the authority of the Secretary of State pending. In other words, the Secretary of State has a discretion as to whether a person should be detained. I wish to refer to the evidence which has been given to us about an organisation called Women against Rape. It highlights the devastating effect and impact of being detained in an induction centre and/or a detention centre in particular for women who are already traumatised by their experiences. These often include rape in detention. They experience extreme distress on being incarcerated. In some cases that continues for many months in conditions which remind them of the conditions from which they have fled. Woman suffering from rape trauma syndrome need a very sympathetic environment, independent legal advice, appropriate medical and healthcare, counselling and other support which is not available in such centres. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, pleaded with the Government to be sympathetic to women who suffer because of the situation in which they find themselves. Every immigration and asylum agency can detail such cases and the impact on victims.
	We raised this issue during the passage of previous immigration and asylum legislation. We pleaded with government then and we do so again. I do not allege that the Government are heartless; that is the last thing that I should suggest. I am sure that the Government share our concern about such issues. I shall avoid detailing the harrowing examples that have been given to us by various agencies about women who suffer this trauma. This is not simply a question of people being raped in detention; it is also a question of people being tortured. Ample evidence is available from the report of the medical foundation. It highlights case after case of people who undergo that ordeal.
	My plea to the Minister is that the Home Secretary should have discretion in this regard. The need for a more compassionate and humanitarian approach will resolve this difficulty. This issue deserves serious consideration. Our decision about the way in which we treat such victims will reflect on our civilised values. I hope that the Minister will not find it inappropriate to agree to the amendment.

Lord Hylton: I suggest that this is one of the most important groups of amendments.
	Amendment No. 163A refers to,
	"a reasonable and limited period",
	of detention. That is important because it is intended to prevent people being detained and then forgotten. We know that there are currently cases in which people are in detention before they have received their first decision or they are in detention after a first decision and before an appeal has been heard. The amendment would considerably improve the legislation.
	I turn to the unnumbered amendment which follows Amendment No. 164A in the Marshalled List. Earlier, the Minister mentioned humanitarian criteria as being likely to govern the selection of those people who go to accommodation centres rather than being dispersed, which was helpful. Can he therefore say that those who can bring themselves to mention that in the past they have suffered torture or rape will, if possible, be directed to an accommodation centre? I am aware that it is not always possible for those people to declare that to an unknown government official at an early stage. When it does not happen and no declaration is immediately made, it can still be made at a later stage. At that later stage, it is crucially important that the person should be seen by an expert independent doctor with relevant experience of such cases; for example, those who work with the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture.
	Even if the Government criticise the text of the unnumbered amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, I hope that they recognise that it contains an important principle.
	I turn to Amendment No. 164A, which appears in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It touches on the essential matter of written reasons. I prefer Amendment No. 167, which was spoken to by my noble friend Lord Sandwich, to which I have added my name. That is fuller, better and clearer. It is needed because the Government refuse to allow automatic bail reviews and because it has been shown that habeas corpus, which is an important part of the history of civil liberties, is an insufficient and inadequate procedure with regard to getting asylum seekers out of detention. I urge that amendment on the Government.

Lord Filkin: I shall speak initially to Amendment No. 163A. That amendment would require the detention of persons detained under the power in Clause 52 to be for only a "reasonable and limited period". Although it creates an explicit requirement to detain a person under this clause for no more than a reasonable and limited period, the amendment does not after the wording of the existing powers of detention in the 1971 Act. It is not entirely clear, as drafted, what the inclusion of the word "limited" in this amendment is intended to achieve. If it is intended to require the setting of a time limit for a person's detention under this clause at the point at which it is authorised, I fear that that is simply impracticable; nor do we regard it as necessary.
	Setting such a limit at the outset of detention would require considerable predictive ability, which is unrealistic, or the setting of no more than an arbitrary time limit, which might bear no relation to the particular circumstances of the case concerned as it progressed. In either case, it would be odd for the detention of a person under this clause to be subject to a time limit while that was not the case for detentions authorised under the Immigration Act 1971. Moreover, a time limit on detention would be counter-productive in that it would simply encourage those in detention to prolong and frustrate the process so as to reach a point at which they had to be released.
	Although there is no express requirement in legislation to detain persons for no more than a reasonable period necessary in the circumstances of each case, domestic and ECHR jurisprudence is clear and well established on this point.
	First, the power to detain may only be exercised for the specific purpose authorised by the statute. Secondly, detention is only permitted for so long as is reasonably necessary in the circumstances for that authorised purpose. Thirdly, the detaining authority must act with reasonable diligence with a view to the purpose being pursued. That is well understood and it does not require a statement to that effect on the face of the Bill. For this reason, we feel that the amendment is unnecessary and invite the noble Lord to withdraw it.
	Amendment No. 164A would require written reasons for detention to be given to any person detained under the power in Clause 52 with provision for those reasons to be challenged, albeit by unspecified means. These requirements would not apply to any person detained under the powers of detention in the Immigration Act 1971.
	It is right that detained persons should be notified of the reasons for their detention. It is also right for such persons to be kept informed of the reasons for any continuing detention. It is for these reasons that Rule 9(1) of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 requires every detained person to be provided with written reasons for detention at the time of his initial detention and monthly thereafter.
	In line with this rule, every detained person is served at the time of their detention with a written notice which sets out the Immigration Act power under which detention has been authorised, the reason or reasons for detention, and the factors taken into account in reaching that decision. This notice must be explained to the detainee, using an interpreter if necessary. The form itself and instructions to staff on its completion make this clear. The noble Lord's amendment does not therefore put in place something which is not, we believe, happening already. On that basis I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
	I am conscious that in tabling Amendment No. 164B noble Lords are acting on a suggestion made by the JCHR. I am conscious that the committee includes among its members some very eminent legal minds. It is therefore with some trepidation that I suggest that the amendment is, in the Government's view, both unnecessary and potentially confusing.
	Unlike the committee, we do not consider that there is any ambiguity in the wording of subsection (7). If the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person is someone in respect of whom he is able to make one of the relevant decisions, that person may be detained under this clause. If the Secretary of State does not have reasonable grounds for suspecting that he may make such a decision, there is nothing in subsection (7) that would allow detention on any lesser grounds, however one might define them. For that reason, we say that it is unnecessary to add the word "only".
	The amendment is also, at the very least, potentially confusing and may actually have an effect which I do not think the committee intended. Clause 52 allows the Secretary of State to authorise the detention of certain categories of persons, all of whom may be liable to removal under the powers contained in Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act. In addition, subsection (7) allows this power to be exercised where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the individual concerned is such a person. In other words, if it turns out that the person who was detained is not such a person, then, provided always that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person could be detained, the detention was not unlawful.
	If Amendment No. 164B were to be accepted, however, the circumstances under subsection (7) would not be in addition to the power to detain the persons described in subsections (1) and (2). Instead, on the face of it, subsection (7) would govern the rest of the clause.
	On a plain reading of the subsection, as it would read if amended in the way suggested, the power to detain would be exercisable only where the Secretary of State had reasonable ground to suspect that he could make a decision of the relevant kind. But where he had something more than a reasonable ground—where, for example, he might have almost certainty—then perhaps it may not apply. As I say, I do not think that this is the intention of Amendment No. 164B and I hope that my explanation will persuade noble Lords not to press the matter.
	The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, helpfully suggested the inclusion of Amendment No. 167 at this stage. It is of course right that the detained person should be notified of the reasons for their detention; it is also right for such a person to be kept informed of the reasons for any continuing detention. As I indicated, that is why Rule 9(1) of the Detention Centre Rules requires the written notification at the time of the detention and monthly thereafter.
	In line with this rule, every detained person is served at the time with a written notice which sets out the Immigration Act power under which the detention has been authorised and the reason or reasons for doing so. This must be explained to the detainee, using an interpreter if necessary. The detention of individuals is reviewed monthly, assuming it lasts that long. If, following the review, a detainee is to remain in detention, he will be given a written update on the progress of his case, together with the reasons for maintaining detention.
	The noble Earl's new subsection therefore does not put in place something which is not required already. It would, however, require rather more than the present position: to be frank, more than is necessary or practicable, namely that the written notice of reasons for detention should be translated into a language understood by the detainee concerned and that it should not be on a pro forma.
	So far as the language is concerned, this option has been considered previously and has been rejected as impracticable and unnecessary. The existing notice has to be explained to the detained person and, if necessary, it must be done with the interpreter. This ensures that the detainee understands the reason for detention. In almost all cases the detainee's advocate is likely to be able to read English, and the documentation served in English makes it absolutely clear to the detainee's advocate the power and the reasons for detention. While interpreting is possible, it would be another thing for the notice to be translated and served on the detainee without delay.
	There has been some criticism of the detention reasons notice being a pro forma. The clear intention behind Amendment No. 164A is that it should be an individually tailored letter in every case. I do not accept that the pro forma provides any less information on the reasons for detention than would realistically be given in a letter. It is certainly not the case that the current notice provides only generalised reasons for detention. It sets out the specific power of detention used and specifies the particular reasons and factors that apply to the decision to detain in the case concerned. A letter drawn up for each case would do no more and would be likely only to introduce further delay. For those reasons, we do not consider it necessary.
	To amplify that, the checklist contains all current policy reasons for detention and the factors to be taken into account when detaining. Therefore, it addresses the individual circumstances of the person being detained. That meets the commitment made by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. The form is kept under review, as my noble and learned friend Lord Williams undertook.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, also spoke to the important Amendments Nos. 164ZB and 177ZA. I strongly sympathise with the sentiments that lie behind the amendments and the serious issues that they address, even though I do not think that they are necessary. We made it clear in our 1998 White Paper, Fairer, Faster and Firmer, that evidence of a history of torture should weigh strongly in favour of temporary admission or temporary release when deciding whether to detain while an individual's asylum claim is being considered. That remains the case.
	The instructions to staff authorising detention are clear on that. Independent evidence that a person has a history of torture is one of the factors that must be taken into account when deciding whether to detain and would normally render the person concerned unsuitable for detention other than in exceptional circumstances. Such evidence may emerge only after the detention has been authorised. That may be one of the circumstances referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. If that happens, the evidence will be considered to see whether it is appropriate for the detention to continue.
	We reinforced that in the Detention Centre Rules 2001. Rule 35(3) specifically provides for the medical practitioner at the removal centre to report on the case of any detained person who he is concerned may have been the victim of torture. There are systems in place to ensure that such information is passed to those responsible for deciding whether to maintain detention and to those responsible for considering the individual's asylum application.
	However, unfortunately, there cannot be a blanket and total exclusion for anyone who claims that they have been tortured. There may be cases in which it would be appropriate to detain somebody who has a history of torture. For example, the person concerned might be a persistent absconder who is being returned to a third country. It might be necessary to detain such a person to effect removal. There will be other cases in which the particular circumstance of the person justifies such an action. There will be yet other cases in which we do not accept that the person concerned has been the victim of torture. Despite that, I repeat my earlier comments about the importance of seeking to interpret these cases with the utmost care and not lightly using the exceptions to which I referred.
	The amendment, which would not apply to any person detained under the detention powers in the 1971 Act, would reduce what can be a difficult area to a blanket exemption in a way that is, by definition, overly prescriptive and open to considerable debate and argument as to whether all its conditions have been met in a particular case.
	Amendment No. 177ZA contains similar, although not identical, wording. It is out of place in Clause 59. People are not detained on induction programmes and nor, to use the wording of the amendment, could they be seen as "reminiscent" of detention from which a person has fled. A stay near an induction programme will be short-term. The places where people will reside will have no resemblance to detention and there is no reason to make a blanket exemption from the provision in Clause 59 for those who have been tortured. I repeat that I am entirely sympathetic with the sentiments underlying the amendments, but I hope that what I have explained goes some way to relieving the concerns that have been expressed.
	I also noted the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about whether those who have suffered torture and rape should be able to go to accommodation centres rather than being detained. I understand the spirit of what he is saying. However, accommodation centres do not have any detention process, so they would be unlikely to provide the necessary security if there is believed to be a need to detain. I hope that the noble Lord's concern is addressed by testing seriously whether detention is necessary when there is a potential case of torture. I referred earlier to the noble Lord's point about whether the declaration could be made later. The responsible officials should attend to that and give it serious consideration.
	Finally, with regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, concerning a reasonable and limited period, the implied requirement is already accepted that detention will be for no longer than necessary in the circumstances. Detention cases must also be kept under review with regular internal reviews. As I said previously, detention centre rules require reasons for detention to be given on a monthly basis.
	I regret having spoken at such length but, of course, Members of the Committee grouped together a number of amendments and I needed to speak to five or six at the same time.

Lord Dholakia: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him some questions relating to Amendment No. 167 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, concerning detention centre rules. The Minister was good enough to tell us what the rules were all about and how they were being exercised. But Bail for Immigration Detainees, which has considerable experience in this matter, has drawn my attention to the fact that, although Rule 9 requires the Immigration Service to give reasons for detention on a monthly basis, in its experience detainees are rarely given such reasons in the monthly report which they receive from the service. That is a matter of very serious concern.
	The issue has already been taken up with the Home Office, but I have been given to understand that the Immigration Service has not yet considered it appropriate to discipline immigration officers who fail, in their monthly reports, to give reasons for detention.
	That is a serious matter which has a number of consequences. One is that it is very difficult for a detainee to prepare a bail application if he does not know the reasons for his detention. When previously unknown reasons for detention are advanced by the Immigration Service at a bail hearing, effectively that delays the decision and causes the whole procedure to be adjourned. On the basis of contributions made in the other place, I understand that that may be one reason for discussing the removal of the whole bail provision. It undermines Rule 9, and I should be very grateful if the Minister would give the matter serious consideration. The factors that I have set out breach the rule. I do not consider that to be right or proper, and I believe that appropriate action should be taken.

Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for his further question. I also thank him for the information that he offered on Rule 9 and for setting out, following advice from specialist immigration organisations, his belief that the rule is not adequately complied with. It is a serious issue, and perhaps the noble Lord would supply me with the best evidence that he has. Over the summer I shall undertake to look at that evidence and seek to make other inquiries. I shall also aim to have a further discussion with him before Report stage.

Lord Avebury: I am most grateful to Members of the Committee who have taken part in this debate on a series of amendments. I hope that the Minister will have noticed that other noble Lords whose amendments were not grouped with this set have voluntarily grouped their amendments, thus saving the Committee's time and speeding up the process of discussion. The fact that they did so was a useful exercise because these amendments, including that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and those in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, were directly relevant to the three amendments which were grouped initially.
	First, the Minister said that the time limit would require predictability, which is not in the possession of Ministers or immigration officers. He also said that, although there is no express requirement to limit detention to a reasonable period, domestic and European legislation demand that detention should be imposed only for a period which is reasonably necessary.
	I could accept that if the outcome was that people suffered detention only for periods that were reasonably necessary. Bail for Immigration Detainees has just given me four examples of cases where people were released from detention after periods of six months, nine months, four months and eight months. I do not think that those periods were reasonable, and so the outcomes have not been in accordance with the assurances given by the Minister. The matter needs to be considered further.
	With regard to the written rules, the Minister gave a useful assurance to my noble friend that he would consider the examples supplied by the agencies. While he is doing that, perhaps he will look at the question of translation in the light of the fact that determinations from the asylum support adjudicators are all translated before being served because of the importance of the decision and the reasons given therein. I do not understand why the same should not apply to the decisions about the liberty of the individual which to us are no less important. If it can be done in one case, it should be done in another. I hope that the Minister, in looking at the information to be supplied to him by my noble friend, will also take that matter into account.
	The question of the JCHR recommendation is a complicated matter. I do not profess to have fully taken on board the reasons given by the Minister in his reply. It is perhaps best if I leave that to be considered by the JCHR and perhaps it will offer further advice to the Minister. There was a dialogue between the JCHR and the Minister and it is surprising, if he put the arguments forward, that they did not prevail. It held to its view in spite of the fact that, as the Minister said, the committee is composed of people who are extremely well qualified in the law and particularly in human rights law.
	Finally, on the question of torture, will the Minister think about the systems that are in place to ensure that information is passed to the appropriate officials? The detention centre rules provide only that a report should be made from the doctor, through the centre manager, to the Secretary of State; they are silent on what the Secretary of State should do with that information. A lacuna occurs in the rules which needs to be examined. If the Secretary of State is not under any obligation to take cognisance of the information submitted to him, people who have suffered torture or rape may be detained for a long time.
	An example sent to me by BID concerned a female asylum seeker who had been severely traumatised by her experiences in her country of origin. She remained in detention awaiting appeal, during which time her mental health continued to deteriorate. She was held for over four months. It would be interesting to know how the system went wrong. Presumably when the information comes up from the doctor to the Secretary of State, some action is taken which feeds back to the detention decision-maker, and the person with growing mental health problems who is being detained will be promptly released. The fact that that does not happen is a matter of serious concern to us.
	I shall leave those matters for the Minister to reflect on throughout the Summer Recess, as shall we. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Avebury: moved Amendment No. 164:
	Page 28, line 24, leave out "that paragraph" and insert "any of those paragraphs"

Lord Avebury: This is a drafting point. It is intended to make the wording conform more closely to the rules of syntax of the English language. Perhaps the Minister will speak to his amendments in this group, but they concern an entirely different point.
	A person may be detained under the authority of the Secretary of State pending a decision by the Secretary of State whether to give directions under one of three paragraphs of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act. Once the Secretary of State has given directions for a person's removal, he has the power to detain that person pending his removal. I understand the purpose of the clause, which is to enable the official who conducts the examination of the asylum seeker, to make the decision to detain on behalf of the Secretary of State. We have no quarrel with that.
	As to the wording, in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 the words "that paragraph" always refer to a single paragraph. In Sections 116, 117 and 120 that phrase refers to paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 to the Act and in paragraphs 60 and 126 of Schedule 14 it refers to only a single paragraph and not to two or more paragraphs. On the other hand, in Section 140 of the 1999 Act the words "any of paragraphs", followed by some numbers, refers to several different paragraphs.
	The precedents refer to one paragraph and I believe that it would be less confusing if this amendment were to be accepted. I hope that the Minister will agree. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord invites me to move the government amendments in this group, as I shall. As a matter of courtesy I shall deal with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, first. We are extremely grateful to the noble Lord for his suggested amendment, but we believe that it is unnecessary. I can, however, see what prompted the noble Lord to table it.
	However much it may jar on the ear or the eye, the use of the singular in subsections (1)(b) and (2)(d) is, according to our best advice—no doubt parliamentary draftsmen—correct. The true position under subsection (1)(a) is that it allows the Secretary of State to authorise detention pending a decision whether or not to give removal directions under one or other of those paragraphs. But the eventual directions, if and when they are given, will be under only one of the three. It would be pointless to set removal directions under more than one, even if that were possible.
	Thus, subsection (1)(a) allows a person to be detained on the authority of the Secretary of State pending a decision by the Secretary of State. Similarly, subsection (1)(a) allows a person to be detained on the authority of the Secretary of State pending a decision by the Secretary of State, and so on. Finally, subsection (1)(a) permits detention pending a decision under paragraph 14 and subsection (1)(b) allows the person to be detained where directions have been given under that paragraph.
	In other words, subsection (1) contains a single new power which allows the Secretary of State to authorise detention, first, pending a decision whether or not to set removal directions under one of three possible paragraphs, and then when directions have been given under the applicable paragraph. We believe that in terms of drafting, the amendment, although intended to be helpful, is not necessary.
	Amendments Nos. 165 and 166 are minor and technical amendments to the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 and are consequential upon the power of detention contained in Clause 52. They are necessary to ensure that those detained under the power in Clause 52 are on the same footing as persons detained under the detention powers in the Immigration Act 1971.
	At present the 1983 and 1984 Mental Health Acts refer only to persons detained under the 1971 Act. The amendments to the provisions in those Acts relating to the transfer of detained persons requiring mental treatment will extend their scope to include persons detained under Clause 52. There are no substantive changes to the 1983 and 1984 Acts. Therefore, they are benign, helpful, minor and technical.

Lord Hylton: Can the noble Lord give some indication as to how bad one's mental health must to be before one becomes "susceptible to transfer"? In prisons in this country there are thousands of people whose mental health is bad or poor and who need treatment but cannot get it because there are insufficient places in mental hospitals. Can the Minister throw some light on whether so far anyone has been transferred out of immigration or asylum detention?

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may try to support the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I tried to understand—as best I could—the Minister's explanation to the points raised by the noble Lord. It may be that on close scrutiny of Hansard it will make rather clearer sense. But why should we be put to this extraordinary intellectual exercise? Instead of being brought up with a round term by this curious construction, surely life could be made much easier for everyone who has to deal with this issue if the word "the material" was inserted between "under" and "paragraph". Therefore, Clause 52(1)(b) would read:
	"removal of the person from the United Kingdom in pursuance of directions given by the Secretary of State under the material paragraph".
	It would then be perfectly clear what we are talking about. Instead of having this extraordinary exercise, perhaps I may suggest that to the Minister.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I always enter with some trepidation any debate with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden. I am sure that with his legal mastery he is a draftsman of extraordinary talent. I certainly shall take account of his suggestion, which the officials will have noted. I think that what I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was right and attempted to establish a degree of consistency and understanding around the use of the terms. We are always open to new ideas and suggestions.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Is the Minster taking the suggestion of my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew so seriously that he will write to him with his conclusions on this matter before we reach the Report stage?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am happy to agree to that. I always listen with great interest to the wisdom of the noble and learned Lord. We shall afford him the courtesy of a written reply.
	I shall offer the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, a similar facility. He has asked a question which requires a degree of research. With apologies to the noble Lord, I am happy to investigate and to see what information, such as it is, we can find out on numbers and types of cases. It is an important issue and deserves a proper response. I am grateful for those two important points.

Lord Avebury: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, for his comments. The existing wording is inconsistent with the Government's professed aim of making legislation more conformable with the English language. Whatever the Minister may say—I listened carefully to his convoluted explanation—I do not think that the present wording is readily comprehensible by those who need to understand it.
	Therefore, although my wording may not have been ideal—I happily accept the alternative offered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew—at least the Minister, together with his department, should consider whether some other form of words would make more sense to ordinary readers of the English language.
	With regard to the amendment proposed by the Minister relating to the Mental Health Act 1983, I am happy to accept that those detained should be treated in the same way as those who have been detained under the 1971 Act, but the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked a serious question, bearing in mind that we know that there is a gross deficiency of places in secure psychiatric units. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, may know, when the Select Committee recently considered the problem of transferring people from prisons to hospitals, which he mentioned, it found a shortage of about 500 places.
	More recently, Dr John Reed of Her Majesty's Prisons Inspectorate told me that the number of places is still deficient. There are still 500 fewer places than are needed to accommodate the people who should be transferred from prisons into secure psychiatric units, so we may assume that the same is true of people in detention. People who need to be transferred into psychiatric units from places of detention may be held continuously in the place of detention because there is no room for them in a psychiatric unit. It is important that that is clarified. I also look forward to receiving the information that the Minister promised during the summer.

Earl Russell: Does my noble friend remember an occasion on which Lord Taylor of Gosforth, who was Lord Chief Justice, when offered that excuse that no bed was available in a mental hospital, summoned the Secretary of State for Health to appear as a witness in person? Is it not about time for that example to be repeated?

Lord Avebury: Unfortunately, the Secretary of State would be appearing in court every day, if that were to be the rule. We know that prisons and their medical officers have serious difficulties. When Beverley Hughes was in charge of prisons, she told me that it was not altogether a question of capacity, but also one of process. The Department of Health and the Prison Service recently signed a protocol that is supposed to speed up the transfer of such people, but so far it has not worked, because it kicks in only once the clinician in a secure psychiatric unit has accepted that the person is eligible for a place.
	All of the difficulties that we encounter in the prison system read across into detention. There is a shortage of information in that regard which the Minister has undertaken to remedy. We look forward to that, but in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 164A to 164B not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 165 and 166:
	Page 29, line 21, at end insert—
	"( ) In the Mental Health Act 1983 (c. 20)—
	(a) at the end of section 48(2)(d) (detained persons susceptible to transfer for mental treatment: immigration) there shall be added "or under section 52 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention by Secretary of State)", and
	(b) in the heading of section 53 (supplemental provision) the reference to the Immigration Act 1971 becomes a reference to the Immigration Acts."
	Page 29, line 21, at end insert—
	"( ) In the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 (c. 36)—
	(a) at the end of section 71(2)(c) (detained persons who may be transferred to hospital for mental treatment) there shall be added "or under section 52 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention by the Secretary of State)", and
	(b) at the end of section 74(1)(b) (further provision about such persons) there shall be added "or under section 52 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention by the Secretary of State)"."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.

The Earl of Sandwich: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 167:
	After Clause 52, insert the following new clause—
	"REASONS FOR DETENTION
	(1) A person detained by the Secretary of State under Section 52 of this Act or by an immigration officer or the Secretary of State under the Immigration Act 1971 shall be provided with full written reasons for his detention in a language which he fully understands.
	(2) Such reasons shall be provided within 24 hours of his initial detention and shall give a full justification for the need to detain him at that time.
	(3) Further written reasons shall be given at the end of each period of 28 days or more during which he continues to be detained and shall give a full justification for the continuing need to detain him in particular.
	(4) The completion of a pro-forma sheet listing general reasons for detention will not be sufficient to meet the requirements of this Section."

The Earl of Sandwich: I have already spoken to the amendment. I should simply like to thank the Minister for giving us not just full written reasons but a full written and spoken explanation, and for the assurances he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia.

[Amendment No. 167 not moved.]
	Clause 53 [Control of entry to United Kingdom, &c.: use of force]:

Lord Avebury: moved Amendment No. 168:
	Page 29, line 37, at end insert—
	"( ) After paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, there shall be inserted—
	"It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State—
	(a) to issue a code of practice in connection with the tape-recording of interviews of persons examined by an immigration officer under paragraphs 2, 2A or 3 above; and
	(b) to make an order requiring the tape-recording of persons so examined."

Lord Avebury: If accepted, the amendment would bring into operation the practice of tape-recording interviews with immigration detainees. At the moment, many interviews are conducted without representatives. The quality of interpreters is variable; there is no recognised qualification they have to attain in order to become interpreters. Interview notes are not read back to the applicant; he only has to countersign in order to verify identity.
	At Oakington, where proper advice is available to asylum seekers, lawyers frequently identify discrepancies and inaccuracies that can be corrected on the spot. In one recent case of a Zimbabwean rape victim who arrived in April 2001, she applied in August and was interviewed when still in acute distress. The Refugee Legal Centre picked up five pages of inaccuracies and misrepresentations in the interview record.
	When interviews are conducted at an airport or at Croydon, frequently there may not be a representative present or the applicant is not given an adequate opportunity to contest the reliability or accuracy of the written record. With a tape recording the quality of the evidence would be enormously improved, to the advantage of both parties and in the interests of making the process faster and fairer, as we all wish to do.
	The wording of the amendment is taken from Section 60 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It has long been considered that the criminal justice system is best served by having an accurate record of what is said at interviews. Surely the tried and tested procedures adopted in such cases would read across into the determination of asylum claims. I beg to move.

Earl Russell: I support the amendment. Last night, rather later than I would have wished, and therefore without the time to complete the reading I would have wished, I started to read the pamphlet Deciding to Detain, a report by the University of Essex Human Rights Centre by Leanne Weber and Todd Landman. It suggests to me that a great deal of the decisions taken that lead to detention—often mistaken detention—arise from mistakes in the initial interview. That is not a new thought on these Benches or in the House. But what is so good in the report is that it allows the immigration officers to speak for themselves in a vernacular speech that I can understand.
	I hear in those immigration officers a sense of having lost control of the processes of their job, which as a professional is something I recognise far more closely than I would have wished. They often regard it as their job to prevent people coming into this country. I cannot complain at that. I am not a vegetarian: I cannot morally reprove people who work in abattoirs. I do not want Al'Qaeda and the Mafia walking all over this country with every weapon they possess. So I recognise that there must be people with that vocation.
	But the point that the immigration officers make is that that vocation and the vocation of dealing with asylum sit uneasily together. Here is a quote from one:
	"A colleague of mine at Dover said 'If I'd wanted to join an organisation that processed asylum claims I'd have joined the Immigration Advisory Line or something, I wouldn't have joined the Immigration Service'. Because we're not doing the immigration control—we're simply letting people through. That's what I said about asylum being a separate issue from immigration".
	In those words is not only the frustration of someone who sees himself as having lost control of his job. There is also a clear expression of why immigration and asylum should be seen as two separate functions of the Home Office. They ought not to be done by the same people. If they were done by two lots of people with different vocations and different professional training, we would not get what the report suggests that we are getting—people recommending detention because it is the only way they can get back control of the process.
	If anything like that is taking place—I say, "If"—the tape recording of interviews, as proposed in my noble friend's amendment, would go a long way to correct it. Beyond that, the material suggests that there is a long-term way in which our immigration and asylum system could be reformed. As I suggested at Second Reading of the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Bill, without the evidence that I now have, it would involve separating the immigration functions from the asylum functions and having them done by different people. That would be the beginning of wisdom. Until it is done, things will go wrong over and over again, and we will be back here for another Bill, almost before we have finished this one.

Lord Judd: I hope that the Minister will consider seriously the point covered by the amendment. I urge him to do so for two reasons. First, I do not think that I am speaking only for myself when I say that the Minister has convinced us of his decency, his integrity and his determination to see as much justice as possible in the administration of policy and theory. If there is any serious room for doubt—there seems to be a good deal in this area—the proposed amendment would, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, go a long way towards removing that doubt. That is important for justice.
	The second reason why I urge the Minister to take the proposal seriously is that, if we take seriously the threat of terrorism—I, for one, certainly do—we must remember at all times that the extremist plays on any sense of injustice or justice miscarried. It is counter-productive to do things in a way that is not beyond question or doubt. It plays into the hands of extremists and gives them moral grounds for recruiting and increasing their circle of ambivalent support, if not direct support. That is the kind of climate in which it is easier for them to operate. For those reasons, regardless of whether we accept this particular amendment, the point behind the amendment is crucially significant. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will reassure us that he takes it seriously.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I endorse what has just been said. I hope that the Minister will say that he will consider the point behind the amendment, if he cannot accept its precise terms. During that consideration, he should take into account the Home Office's experience of piloting and introducing the tape recording of interviews under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
	At the beginning, there was a great deal of resistance from the police. Subsequently, the police realised that it was as much in their interest to have an objective and unassailable record of what had taken place as it was in the interest of the defendant. It is easy, with the best of intentions, to put a slant on an interview during which one has been able only to make running notes. Police officers, particularly those who conducted the trial—at Dartford in Kent, I think—became the most ardent protagonists on behalf of the innovation. Today, nobody would wish to go back to the days when there was no tape recording. I hope that the Minister will consider that example.

Lord Hylton: I wish to support the amendment because it bears not only on the quality of interviewing in the first place, but also on the quality of interpretation. Both are closely linked to the quality of first decision and therefore to the avoidance of further appeals and judicial reviews. We all understand that that is what the Government wish to see and we support them in that aim.
	The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised important structural questions with regard to the Home Office. Perhaps I may follow his line by asking the Home Office seriously to consider changing the way it operates the system so that one caseworker stays with a case throughout the whole process until it is finally resolved. That would bring about a huge qualitative improvement.

Lord Kingsland: I wish to endorse what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Hylton, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden. Indeed, I have to say quite candidly to the Minister that I had always assumed that such interviews were tape recorded. Indeed, I could not imagine the circumstances in which they would not be recorded. Surely it would be in the interests both of the person being interviewed and of the interviewer that the most accurate record of what has taken place is available, first, to both the parties participating in the interview and, secondly, for any subsequent proceedings.
	I understand that the Government's objective behind the Bill is to secure expedition tempered by fairness. What better way of soundly establishing such a procedure than by making sure that, at the outset, the interviews are accurately recorded? The barriers of language and culture are huge. It is difficult to see how we shall have a reasonable chance of overcoming them unless we start off in the way proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in his amendment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We have had an interesting short debate. It took my mind back to the passage of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Arguments were put forward from both the police and civil liberties perspectives to say that the tape recording of interviews would not be a good move. Ultimately I think that both sides of the arguments came to see that they were wrong and that the government of the day were absolutely right. The tape recording of interviews conducted in police stations has marked a tremendous advance in openness and transparency and has assisted both the defence and the prosecution in equal measure. Furthermore, it has added greatly to the fairness of the process.
	I am going to give a commitment to reflect on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, but I give that commitment to reflect without a further commitment that there will be an amendment or a solution that necessarily accords with the spirit of the amendment before the Committee. I shall do that because there are certain immense logistical problems that would come into play if the Government were to follow this course. I wish to make that point plainly and ensure that it is put on the record.
	Each year something in the order of 90 million passengers arrive in the United Kingdom. Of those, some 13 million are subject to some form of control by the UK Immigration Service at ports and at the Channel Tunnel. Plainly, aiming to tape record up to 13 million interviews a year would be a vast exercise. I do not know whether one would need to record all 13 million interviews; I doubt whether eventually it would be quite that number. However, some of those interviews would include those conducted with British and European citizens because some mistakes would be made. That could lead to long delays for people coming here quite legitimately in being received into the country.
	We also need to consider the enormous cost of installing tape-recording machinery at every control desk at every port and point of entry. There are questions of practicality. If one thinks of ports and the facilities available there for the conducting of interviews, the quality of the interview rooms that we now demand in police stations and the technology used, one begins to get a fair measure of the practical difficulties.
	The current system works reasonably well and there are fairly good and accurate records of interviews. Safeguards are in place. While I accept that recorded interviews would add something more and that there is an initial attraction to their introduction, many problems would need to be overcome in terms of language, recording and so on.
	Attractive though this amendment is, and though I am happy to give a commitment that we will reflect on the comments made by noble Lords in this short and interesting debate, I can go no further. I can give only an agreement to reflect, without a commitment or promise that we will bring back anything. I appreciate that the amendment is intended to be helpful.
	The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the Deciding to Detain report and was candid in extracting the comments of immigration officers. The research took place some years ago and involved a small number of immigration officers. We should like to place on record our debt of gratitude to our immigration officers. They have to work extremely hard and intervene in many challenging circumstances. I am sure that the noble Earl will accept that much has changed in their working practices and that perhaps Deciding to Detain no longer accurately reflects the current position in the context of their work and the changed role and nature of our Immigration Service, which has had to match and meet some very testing circumstances over the past few years. I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising points from the report, but his comments need to be set in context.

Lord Hylton: I welcome the Government's willingness to reflect. It is perhaps the first time it has happened during the course of the Bill.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: No, it is not.

Lord Hylton: No? I accept that. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, rightly pointed to the logistical difficulties implicit in the text of the amendment. However, the Government's problems would be enormously reduced if the tape-recording experiment started only with first interviews in asylum cases.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I take the noble Lord's point. If the focus of the amendment was narrower, it might have some greater potential benefit in those kinds of cases. The amendment is broadly constructed as it stands and its remit would be to place on the service considerable administrative burdens, delays, costs, and so on. Despite its initial attractiveness, there is a fundamental problem with the amendment.

Earl Russell: The report Deciding to Detain to which I referred was not volume one, which was issued a little while ago, but volume two, which is this year's report. Although I recognise that situations change, if the proportion between asylum and immigration has changed in favour of immigration and against asylum, why do we have the Bill?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thank the noble Lord for his clarification.

Lord Avebury: I am enormously grateful to my noble friend Lord Russell and to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, and the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Kingsland.
	Everyone who has spoken in the debate is in favour of the principle of tape recording. The only objection came from the Minister who said that it was administratively impracticable. He gave a sort of undertaking. I am not sure whether it was to review the position over the summer or to think about what has been said in the debate. He dropped a hint towards the end of this remarks that he might have looked more favourably on the amendment had it been confined to the interviews with asylum applicants because that would cut the numbers from a potential 12 million to something less than 76,000. We shall think about the matter during the summer and decide whether to table an amendment which is limited to asylum applicants, as the Minister suggested.
	My noble friend Lord Russell referred to decisions to detain. The Committee may remember the case of the Afghans who arrived on Ariana Airlines and were segregated in the fire service college over a weekend when interviews were held. They were reported on by an interpreter and showed the enormous pressures that were brought to bear on those people not to make an application for asylum but to return to Afghanistan. That followed an undertaking by the then Home Secretary, Mr Jack Straw, now Foreign Secretary, that he would get rid of these people as rapidly as possible.
	That is what happens when there are no proper recordings of interviews. It is possible for serious pressure to be brought to bear on applicants for asylum not to pursue that intention but to go back to their countries of origin. That could be avoided if interviews were tape-recorded.
	I refer the Minister to a report by the Home Office Immigration and Nationality Directorate dated July 1999 on the asylum decision process consultancy. There are several paragraphs relating to taping all substantive interviews. Paragraph 6.34 states that,
	"taping interviews reduces the opportunity to dispute what was said during an interview . . . may encourage greater professionalism by the interviewer and interpreter and . . . the trial"—
	which was undertaken by the Home Office, so we need not start again from scratch—
	"has apparently indicated that applicants and their advisers have also behaved more professionally during the interview".
	The saving in time and costs compared with the conventional process was threefold. Therefore, it is not a matter of enormous cost to accept the spirit of the amendment. It would be a saving as well as an enormous benefit to practitioners and their clients. We shall return to the matter on Report with the modification that the Minister has suggested limiting it to asylum applicants. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	On Question, Whether Clause 53 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Avebury: I oppose Clause 53 stand part in order to pave the way for Amendments Nos. 171 and 172, the purpose of which is to consolidate the amendments made to the all-important Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 in this Bill with the schedule as amended. Technically it is not a true consolidation because, in addition to the task of reordering and renumbering the schedule itself to incorporate all the changes made to it since 1971, we would have to amend all the references made to the schedule in other legislation, and the matter would have to be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills and the Law Commission to justify the term.
	I am greatly indebted to the Public Bill Office for the assistance that it has given me in accomplishing part of the task and I hope that between us we shall have done enough to demonstrate the usefulness of the exercise and convince your Lordships that it should be completed.
	We have taken Schedule 2, as amended, and inserted in it the words specified in Clauses 53 and 54. We should also have dealt with Clause 62(1) in the same way, but unfortunately through an error of mine, it was transformed into Amendment No. 179. But the wording of Clause 53 now appears as paragraph 18(2) of the revised schedule, and the wording of Clause 54 as new sub-paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) of that paragraph. The further tidying up still necessary would be to insert the words of Clause 62(1) after what becomes paragraph 11 in the renumbered schedule, and to renumber all the following paragraphs.
	The effect of these amendments would be to enable practitioners, IND staff and clients to read the whole schedule as amended, instead of having to refer back to all the legislation that has been passed since 1971 to get the complete picture. I appreciate that it is possible to buy reference books that show how the 1971 Act appears with all the amendments, such as Margaret Phelan's excellent Immigration Law Handbook. But as fast as these tomes appear, Parliament comes along with fresh legislation and one has to spend another £40 on keeping up to date. This Government seem to have lost interest in consolidation, so let Parliament take a small step towards making the statutes easier to read, as an example that we should like all departments, but particularly the Home Office, to follow. I commend my amendments to the Committee.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: In keeping with earlier debates, I was expecting views to be expressed on all sides of the Committee, but plainly that has not happened. I have quite a long briefing note on this matter. However, I am mindful of the hour and am thinking that the several pages of justification for the current situation are not something that Members of the Committee will want to hear.
	We are grateful for the thought that lies behind the amendments in this group. I cannot accept the noble Lord's point that the Government are not interested in consolidation. My recollection is that we recently had a mini-debate on the subject. I believe it was my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer who made the point that there had been some consolidation during this Government's period of office and that further consolidation was very much in our minds.
	We recognise the case that has been made for consolidating the Acts relating to immigration and asylum. The noble Lord made a fair point. But we cannot practically do that before the whole reform package has been perfected and put together. However, we are committed to consulting the Law Commission about consolidation in due course.
	I recognise that "in due course" can mean "as long as a piece of string". But we are committed to this. It makes good and apparent sense. So although we do not intend to include consolidation measures in the Bill—and for that reason I cannot accept the amendments—we recognise it as important and significant. We are grateful to the noble Lord for raising this matter. It is right that he does so.
	I hope that the noble Lord will take some encouragement from my response. I ask him not to press the amendments that he has tabled.

Lord Avebury: As St Augustine said:
	"Da mihi castitatem, sed noli modo"—
	"Give me chastity, but not yet". The noble Lord expects me to be satisfied with an assurance that consolidation of the immigration Acts will happen at some time in the future. I suppose that I have to be pleased that he has given me that assurance, because I cannot expect anything more this evening. I hope that at least this debate has shown that the task is not so enormous. If the Public Bill Office can manage to supply half the work of consolidating the most important schedule of the 1971 Act, I am sure that it is not beyond the resources of the department to carry on and do the rest of the work.
	So I hope that the Government will take this matter seriously and that we shall not have to wait indefinitely for consolidation when so much depends on it for immigration practitioners, for clients and for the IND. In the meantime, I shall not oppose the Question and I shall not press my amendments.

On Question, Clause 53 agreed to.
	Clause 54 [Escorts]:

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 169:
	Page 30, line 6, at end insert "(in accordance with rules made by the Secretary of State)"

Lord Kingsland: Amendment No. 169 would require any searches carried out by detainee custody officers, under the powers to be conferred on them by the proposed new sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 17 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, to be conducted in accordance with rules made by the Secretary of State. This amendment seeks to raise the question of how the conduct of detainee custody officers will be regulated when, as is envisaged under the provisions to be inserted under Clause 54 of the Bill, they enter premises to conduct searches and detain persons for whom they are responsible.
	The Government propose to allow detainee custody officers to enter private premises without consent in order to conduct those searches—although they will be able to do so only where an immigration officer or a constable has entered the premises under a warrant. The existing power to search, the definition of which is referred to in the proposed new sub-paragraph (5) is contained in paragraph 2 of Schedule 13 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
	The conduct of police officers is obviously regulated by a number of well-known provisions, not least those of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The amendment seeks to clarify the provisions that will apply to detainee custody officers in circumstances where they have entered private premises by force for the purpose of carrying out a search.
	Can the Minister tell the Committee whether the rules on the searches by those custody officers, which are referred to in paragraph 2(1)(a) of Schedule 13 to the 1999 Act, have been made; and, if so, whether they contain an adequate framework for the conduct of custody officers in the circumstances that will pertain if they exercise the powers conferred on them by this clause?
	We have received some representations on this point from the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association and others who were concerned that there may be a deficiency in this respect. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to reassure the Committee on this point.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I start from the position that the amendment is unnecessary. I hope that I can give the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, the reassurance that he seeks.
	The power for escorts to search a detained person is contained in paragraph 2(1)(a) of Schedule 13 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. That power must already be exercised in accordance with rules made by the Secretary of State regardless of the context in which the search is taking place.
	Those rules are contained in the Detention Centre Rules 2001 (Statutory Instrument 238/2001). Specifically, Rule 7—it applies equally to escorts as it does to staff in removal centres—requires that detained persons shall be searched in as seemly a manner as is consistent with discovering anything concealed. It also requires that no detained person shall be stripped and searched in the sight of another detained person or in the sight of or presence of an officer or other person not of the same sex.
	The amendment is properly put forward by the noble Lord acting on information put to him by practitioners. However, our contention is that it is an unnecessary duplication of an existing provision. In those terms, I believe that the noble Lord should feel assured, and comfortable in withdrawing the amendment.

Lord Dholakia: I do not want to repeat the Minister's reply in debate on a later amendment but did I hear him aright? Can the custody officer enter premises at present without the necessity for a search warrant signed by a responsible person?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think not; I think that the power is limited and that it can be exercised only when escorts are accompanying immigration or police officers to premises for which a warrant has been issued. I believe that that is the answer to the noble Lord's point but I shall seek further clarification and if I am wrong I shall write to him.

Lord Avebury: I listened carefully to the Minister's answer but I did not hear him address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, about the rules mentioned in paragraph 2 of Schedule 13 to the 1991 Act. That provision gives the detaining custody officer the power to conduct those searches. It also states that that has to be in accordance with rules made by the Secretary of State. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, therefore asked: where are the rules and have they yet been made? The understanding of the agencies was that they still had not been published; that was also my understanding. If the Minister can assure us that the rules exist, I hope that he will also give us a reference to them so that we can look them up.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I see that those in the Box are nodding; I take it that the rules have been made and laid. If Members of the Committee want further clarification, I shall happily provide them with a note confirming the situation. Meanwhile, I believe that the answer is on its way over to me. The rules are in paragraph 13(2) of Schedule 2. They have been made. Rule 7 of the detention centre rules is the relevant provision. I referred to that earlier. Rule 7 applies equally to escorts as to staff in removal centres.

Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his response and clarification. I hope that he will allow me to go away and examine rule 7 in the light of what has been said in this short and extremely useful debate, and to come back, if necessary, on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 54 agreed to.
	Clause 55 agreed to.
	Clause 56 [Detention centres: change of name]:

Earl Russell: moved Amendment No. 169A:
	Page 30, line 39, leave out "removal" and insert "holding"

Earl Russell: This amendment deals with the proposal in Clause 56 to change the name of detention centres to "removal centres". That sounds to me suspiciously like a pre-judgment of the case. My amendment would change the name to "holding centre", a much more neutral and balanced title.
	Amendment No. 170, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would provide that those centres were holding centres for people whom the Secretary of State was lawfully entitled to remove. That would achieve exactly the same effect as my amendment. If the Minister is prepared to accept either of those amendments, I am not going to be fussy about which it is; I should be content with either. However, if the Minister condemns both amendments, I will be reminded of the person who said, in the case of the impeachment of the Earl of Strafford, that it began to sound as if we would condemn him because we would condemn him. I hope that the Minister will agree to one of the amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: As I understand it, the Government want detention centres to be called "removal centres" to make the point that detention may involve removal and that it is therefore better to give those centres that name even if they are still detention centres and will still detain people for purposes other than removal. The amendments of the official Opposition and of the Liberal Democrats neatly bracket the Government's position, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said. The Liberal Democrats approve of the Government's desire to change the name but they do so by involving both purposes, and the official Opposition's amendment acknowledges the Government's desire to introduce the concept of removal by making it the single purpose. As the noble Earl said, that is a very simple choice for the Government to make between the two amendments.
	There is, within a mile of this place, a good test of the Government's logic. The Tate Gallery stands where Jeremy Bentham's Millbank penitentiary once stood. As one might expect of Bentham, it was in some senses a model prison and, indeed, a modern prison. The domestic arrangements in the cells were ones of which Stephen Tumim would have approved when he was Chief Inspector of Prisons. The penitentiary, which was adjacent to where prisoners took the tender to the larger ships that would transport them to Australia, was where they were held but the prisoners were not yet committed to going. On the eve of their being transported to Australia they were taken to cells on five floors below the Morpeth Arms—a pub which still stands on Millbank—and were held there. That would seem perfectly logical. The penitentiary might reasonably have been called the detention centre; the cells underneath the Morpeth Arms—which I believe are still there—could reasonably have been called a removal centre.
	The Government's position, if I may say so, is straight out of Alice. It is Humpty Dumpty saying that he wants words to mean what he wants them to mean. If the Government regret that they were ever called detention centres, my recollection is that there is another censorious character in Alice—perhaps the Caterpillar, perhaps the Red Queen, perhaps the Griffin, perhaps even Humpty Dumpty himself—who would have said, "If you wanted to call them removal centres, then that is what you should have called them in the first place", and I wholly concur with the noble Lord.

Lord Judd: I strongly support the amendment. It is not simply a matter of clarifying terminology and purpose. I believe that this amendment goes right to the heart of what this Bill is all about and how we want it to be perceived.
	On Second Reading we spent a certain amount of time discussing the distinction between administering necessary policy justly in this area and playing to a negative public opinion by suggesting that the purpose of the legislation was to get rid of all of these people who should not really be here. Some of us argued that, while people who have no grounds for being here have no grounds for being here and will have to be removed, the primary purpose of the Bill is to ensure that all those with any entitlement to be here are able to stay. That is what the Bill is about.
	As soon as we introduce the word "removal" into clauses such as this, whether or not the Government intend it, the message becomes confused. It panders to the irresponsible media and the rest, who want to talk in hysterical terms about the need to remove people rather than talk about our responsibility as a nation for ensuring that those who are entitled to be here are able to be here, while dealing sensitively but firmly with those who are not.
	I believe that there is a great deal more to this amendment—if the noble Earl will forgive me on this occasion, because it is most unusual—than even he suggested. I believe that he was too modest. While there was something to commend the terminology of the Official Opposition, I think that his own term is a better one and I wish that he would stand more firmly by it.

Earl Russell: I am grateful to the noble Lord.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: It may help to look, if the noble Lord finds time to do so, at the Prevention of Terrorism Act applying to Northern Ireland. I believe that those three areas which were attached to police stations, which were specially secure for the purpose of interrogating those suspected of terrorism, were reclassified as holding centres. It was felt that this might be an assistance to the delicate process which, even in my distant days, was in train. It is perhaps a precedent to be looked at.

Lord Hylton: I prefer the second of these two amendments. What the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, has just said rather reinforces my opinion.
	The serious point is that one or other amendment—preferably the second—needs to be accepted until such time as no people are detained who have not yet received their first decision in an asylum case or who have not yet exhausted their rights of appeal.

The Earl of Sandwich: I follow the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and support the amendment. I have information from the Churches' Bail Circle that might be of interest to the Committee. There is evidence from the bail circle and from detention centre visiting groups that many asylum seekers are detained well before the end of the process of determining their claims, as my noble friend said—either on arrival or before the determination of their appeal.
	The bail circle worked with 257 asylum seekers last year and in the first quarter of this year. Full data concerning dates of arrival, asylum claim and detention were available for 102 of these, of whom 77 per cent were detained at or soon after arrival. The sample is small, but there is no reason to suppose that it is not representative. It surely bears out what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I shall speak to my Amendment No. 170. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that logically the Government ought to accept either his amendment or mine and that he is prepared to accept mine if need be. I also heard the noble Lord, Lord Judd, upbraid the noble Earl, Lord Russell, saying that he preferred the noble Earl's amendment to mine. As long as we get the right result, I shall not be pedantic about which wording is adopted. I would be equally happy to support the noble Earl's wording if we can achieve the right result.
	I shall be fairly brief, as the arguments have been covered effectively. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the only people held in removal centres are those whom the Secretary of State is lawfully entitled to remove. That seems an obvious aim. As my honourable friend Mr Malins said on Report in another place:
	"Detaining asylum seekers is a sensitive issue and detention should be used with the greatest sensitivity. Detaining persons whom the Secretary of State is not entitled to remove is an unhappy concept for many Opposition Members".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/6/02; cols. 872-73.]
	We feel the same in this House.
	I was grateful for the intervention of my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, both of whom, in their succinct way, made it clear that the Government's position is untenable. As my noble friend Lord Brooke, said, the Government's words seem like something from Alice in Wonderland.
	Noble Lords have not followed through the question of the current designation of detention centres. I am told that the IND has already changed the name of detention centres to removal centres on letterheads and public signposts—for example at Dungavel—and on memorandums, even though the clause has not even been debated, let alone the Bill enacted. Can the Minister confirm whether the IND has made that change? If so, on whose authority was it done?
	Like other noble Lords, I should be very disappointed if the Minister felt unable to accept either the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, or mine. At this late hour I do not intend to pursue the matter, but I give notice that I shall pursue it later.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Our purpose in renaming detention centres as removal centres is to reinforce the key role that detention plays in the removal of those who have no lawful basis to stay here. It does not signal a change of function for such centres. They will remain designated places of detention for the purposes of the Immigration Act. Similarly, it does not signal a change to the powers to detain. Our priority for the use of detention space is to support the removal of failed asylum seekers and others who have no basis of stay here, such as illegal entrants and overstayers.
	Although we plan to increase the number of detention spaces to some 4,000, they will obviously remain a finite resource that must be focused on the area of greatest need—that is, the removal of failed asylum seekers. That is a priority. But it will always be the case that removal centres will need to be used in other circumstances and at other points in the process where we have power to detain, particularly, for example, at Oakington. That is an integral part of effective immigration control which would be prevented by the amendment. I question whether noble Lords would wish that to happen.
	Apart from detention to effect removal, including deportation, our current policy is that we may detain in both asylum and non-asylum cases while a person's identity or claim is established, or because a person is likely to abscond, or, in asylum cases only, as part of the fast-track case processing at Oakington reception centre. Again, that will continue to be the case despite the change of name to "removal centres". On that basis, it would be inappropriate to seek to restrict those who may be held at removal centres, as Amendment No. 170 seeks to do, to those,
	"whom the Secretary is lawfully entitled to remove".
	There are also practical difficulties with the amendment. A person whose removal was not for the time being lawful—for example, a person with an outstanding asylum claim—would therefore not be able to be detained in a removal centre, although they could be detained in short-term facilities or prisons. It would also prevent the detention in a removal centre of those who are removable, but the power to do so is vested in an immigration officer rather than the Secretary of State. That would apply to the majority of those refused leave to enter.
	I know that there has been some concern that the change of name may lead to confusion among detainees, especially asylum seekers, who have yet to receive a decision on their application but are held at a removal centre. We simply do not accept that. All detainees receive a notice at the time of their detention that sets out clearly the reasons for that detention. Therefore, detainees should be under no illusion as to the reasons. In addition, detained asylum seekers will go through the induction process at the place of detention, and that will include information on the asylum process. Therefore, they will know that they will not be removed while their claim is outstanding. I have set out why we decided to adopt the name "removal centre", and I do not consider that "holding centre" is a better alternative.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, made the point that, within the context of Northern Ireland, there were holding centres for those held pending the further determination of their situation. I am not sure that that necessarily helps the argument for the amendments offered by some Members of the Committee this evening. Surely that could create confusion in some minds as to the purpose of the centres. The comparison with centres used to hold suspected terrorists would be an unenviable parallel. I wonder whether that is as wise a move as some in the Committee might like to argue. I believe that, in the context of immigration and asylum cases, it is not a matter to which we should give serious consideration. Having heard those arguments and points, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Judd: Before my noble friend sits down, I hope that he will accept that in relation to this amendment some of us—I am fairly certain that I shall not be alone—feel that, while he has tried hard to argue the case, he has not convinced us. I ask him again to think himself into the position of people in the centres and, indeed, of many irresponsible people in the media and elsewhere in this country. Some are determined to suggest that we should remove everyone it is possible to remove. Inevitably, that view will become an acute anxiety on the part of people in the centres.
	I understood my noble friends to say repeatedly in the deliberations on this Bill that they are committed to getting the right result in each case. Why throw away that flag of commitment to getting the right result by the injudicious and loose use of the word, "removal"?

Earl Russell: Before I reply, perhaps the Minister will reply to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. Is it true that the name of some centres has already been changed to "removal centre" before the approval of Parliament has been given? Can he answer that before I reply?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am happy to answer. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked a perfectly proper question. The answer is yes; the change was made on the direction of the Home Secretary.
	To pick up the point made by my noble friend Lord Judd, we are committed to ensuring that people who come into this country, albeit illegally, claiming asylum and refuge are treated humanely, decently and properly, and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and law. In renaming detention centres we are seeking to reinforce the key role that detention plays in the removal of those who have no lawful base on which to stay here. It does not, of itself, signal a change of function for the centres. It underlines the important role that they play in the range of facilities, the range of strategies, that we seek to employ to manage and handle the situation.
	The problems that confront us are serious and we take them seriously. We believe in fair and proper treatment. We are a government that have demonstrated that not just in this field of legislation, but in many others. Our record and reputation are second to none in that regard. Therefore I insist that the amendment is unnecessary and should be withdrawn.

Lord Dholakia: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he say, if the Home Secretary has already agreed to rename the detention centres as removal centres, what is the purpose of this clause?

Lord Kingsland: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can he say when the Home Secretary made that direction? Under what power? And what publicity did he give to his decision to do so?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I do not have that information. The noble Lord is entitled to the details and I am happy to place on record that I do not have the details at the Dispatch Box this evening. However, I shall ensure that the noble Lord is furnished with them and also that other Members of the Committee are also provided with them.

Earl Russell: I am grateful for the support I received from the Committee for either my amendment or that in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I particularly enjoyed listening to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. But I could not help thinking what would happen if that process were repeated now, when the people shipped out from Millbank arrived in Australia. It would be a pretty kettle of fish. All the same I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord reached the wrong quotation from Alice. Begging his pardon, the one we wanted was, "Verdict first. Trial afterwards". The noble Lord, Lord Judd, was right about that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, made the point that the name, "removal centres", cannot be justified while they hold people whose claims have not yet been determined or who have not yet exhausted their right of appeal. It completely prejudges the question. In my view it is a contempt of the courts. As for the change of name on the Home Secretary's authority, that is, in my view, a contempt of Parliament.
	I was always brought up to believe that Parliament made the law. Of course, I have been here long enough to know that that principle is honoured as much in the breach as in the observance, but on this occasion it has not even been honoured in the breach. I take that deeply amiss. I agree with my noble friend Lord Avebury: in that case what is the purpose of the clause? Why not delete it altogether if we do not need it? If we do not make the law, what are we all doing sitting here at this time of night pretending that we are trying to change matters that are being altered without so much as a by your leave from any noble Lord?
	It is absolutely vital that justice should not only be done, but should be seen to be done. That means that when people's claims for asylum come up for hearing they should believe that whether their claims are successful depends on the evidence that they offer and the legal justice of their case. If people are put straight into places that are labelled removal centres, that argument cannot be made. One cannot claim to be conducting impartial justice because one has announced to the world at large, in capital letters and printed on signs, that one is doing no such thing. Perhaps that announcement is not accurate, but in that case it was unwise to make it.
	I believe that this is the most unsatisfactory reply that I have heard in Parliament for a good many years. I understand that the Minister offers us good intentions. I believe him, but he sounds remarkably like a servant brandishing an open testimonial that says, "During his period of service with me, Mr So-and-So has discharged his duties entirely to his own satisfaction". He has not discharged them to our satisfaction. I hope that before Report stage we shall see a government amendment so that we shall not have to put our own amendment to a Division. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 170 not moved.]

Lord Filkin: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at twelve minutes before eleven o'clock.